Bank Of America Axes $5 Debit Card Fee

November 2, 2001

CNN Money

By Jason Kessler and Blake Ellis

Bank of America said Tuesday it’s axing its plan to charge a $5 fee for customers who use their debit cards to make purchases.

In September, the bank announced that it would begin charging most customers the monthly fee early next year.

But after widespread customer revolt and announcements by several of its rivals that they won’t charge similar debit-card fees, Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) backpedaled on its plan. Customers who use their debit cards will no longer incur the fee starting in January.

“We have listened to our customers very closely over the last few weeks and recognize their concern with our proposed debit usage fee,” said David Darnell, Bank of America’s co-chief operating officer. “Our customers’ voices are most important to us. As a result, we are not currently charging the fee and will not be moving forward with any additional plans to do so.”

7 banks that are still awesome

Before making the announcement, the bank was considering ways to soften the fee, by offering customers new ways of avoiding it — like making direct deposits or maintaining minimum balances.

But Bank of America still stuck out as other banks fell off the bandwagon. Late last week, Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) both called off pilot programs that would impose debit card fees in certain states.

On Monday, SunTrust (STI, Fortune 500), a large regional bank based in Atlanta, announced that it will no longer charge $5 a month for debit card purchases starting Wednesday. Shortly afterward, Alabama-headquartered Regions Bank (RF, Fortune 500) said it will nix its $4 monthly fee on Tuesday.

“When major banks started retracing their footsteps, it left the banks with the fee exposed to fairly significant potential market share losses” said Jefferson Harralson, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.

Customer revolt: The debit card fees these institutions originally charged (or planned to charge) sparked pledges by thousands of consumers to move their money out of big banks.

Click here for the full report from CNN.

JPMorgan Chase Donates Millions To NYPD Prior To Mass Arrests At Occupy Wall Street

October 5th, 2011

Natural News

By: Jonathan Benson

It may be a simple coincidence, or it may be the perfect embodiment of exactly why thousands of protesters across the US are hitting the streets en masse under the banner of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Earlier this year, financial giant JPMorgan Chase & Co. donated $4.6 million to the New York Police Department (NYPD) to “strengthen security in the Big Apple” and several months later, the NYPD conveniently arrests over 700 individuals, all at one time, involved in peaceful OWS protests.

JPMorgan Chase, of course, is already the epitome of what OWS protesters are speaking out against — the corporation was one of the first to receive taxpayer-funded federal bailout money to the tune of at least $12 billion from the Federal Reserve back in 2008. And meanwhile, millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed as the US economy continues its rapid descent into oblivion.

By all appearances, JPMorgan’s generous donation to NYPD is no different than Monsanto’s donations to political candidates in exchange for support of policies that shelter genetically-modified organisms (GMO) from public scrutiny.

It is similar to Merck & Co.’s donations to Texas Gov. Rick Perry in exchange for pushing Gardasil on young schoolgirls. It is just that, in this case, instead of taking place on the federal level with politicians, corporate bribary is now occurring at the local level with law enforcement.

You can see JPMorgan’s donation announcement here:
http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corpor…

The OWS protests, which officially began on September 17, 2011, in New York City, and have since spread to other US cities, have received little media attention — that is until it was exposed that NYPD officers were pepper spraying and arresting large groups of nonviolent protesters. And even following the rapid spread of this information through alternative media sources and YouTube, the mainstream media (MSM) has been lacking, to say the least, in maintaining any semblance of adequate coverage of the events (http://www.naturalnews.com/033761_O…).

Nevertheless, any corporation — especially one like JPMorgan Chase — that donates nearly $5 million to a police department most likely expects something in return. In this case, it is too odd a coincidence that the corporation’s donation to NYPD, which represents the largest donation it has ever received, comes just before Wall Street protesters were planning to hit the streets to protest against both it and the many other corporations that have corrupted the entire US government.

Those interested in following the OWS protests can view live streaming footage of the events taking place in New York City here:
http://www.livestream.com/globalrev…

Click here for the full report from Natural News

Man Who Turned In $17,000 Fined For Not Telling Truth

June 30th, 2011

ChicagoTribune.com

By: Deanese Williams-Harris

An Arlington Heights man was fined $500 after he turned in $17,000 but lied about how and where he actually found the cash, police said today.

Robert Adams, 54, was cited today for filing a false report with the Rolling Meadows Police Department.

On the evening of June 6, Adams found a Chase Bank bag full of cash totaling about $17,000 near a Walgreens ATM in Midlothian, police said. Instead of turning the cash in at that location, Adams drove to Rolling Meadows and turned in the bag at a Chase Bank. He later told police he found the cash outside a newspaper stand in Rolling Meadows.

After investigators reviewed video surveillance, they discovered Adams found the money in Midlothian, according to Rolling Meadows Police Sgt. Tony Gaspari in a news release.

When reached by phone Wednesday night, Adams said he felt more comfortable turning the cash in to Rolling Meadows officials and filing the report with Rolling Meadows police.

“I know now a little better than I knew then,” he said. “I feel very badly and understand why I should have told the truth.”

Adams said it was a hot day and he just wanted to get home. “I wasn’t looking for a reward. I was just doing the right thing,” he said.

Adams said he was told Wednesday he had to pay a $500 fine for filing a false report. “I accept the fine. I’m very sorry about this whole thing.”

Click here for the full report from the Chicago Tribune

JP Morgan Chase Says It’s Willing To Pay Class Action Lawsuit – Overcharged for Mortgage

April 27th, 2011

AOL Real Estate

By: Sheree R. Curry

JPMorgan Chase says it is willing to pay a whopping $56 million to settle the class-action lawsuit brought by 6,000 members of the military who accused it of overcharging them on their mortgages and violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. A judge still has to approve the offer.

The case was initially brought by Capt. Jonathon Rowles, who says he was overcharged about $900 per month by Chase, which had him to verify his active duty status every 90 days and to reapply for SCRA status at least once per quarter between December 2007 and March 2010, according to the lawsuit.

The SCRA, signed into law by President George Bush in 2003 to replace a similar 1942 law, helps servicemen and servicewomen with certain financial obligations at home, such as rent or mortgage payments, when they are activated for military duty. For example, there is a 6 percent cap on interest rates, they cannot be evicted or have their lease terminated, and they can receive mortgage relief from their lender.

JPMorgan Chase has now offered to cut the interest rates for those military homeowners who did not see a correct cut initially, and it will give back homes to those who were wrongfully foreclosed upon, as well as forgive their mortgage debt. The lender also will pay $27 million in cash to the 6,000 military personnel who were overcharged on their mortgages while they were on active duty. That comes to about $4,500 per family.

JPMorgan already handed out about $6 million to those overcharged with higher interest rates. Of course, if a military member’s home was already under 6 percent and wasn’t due to increase on an ARM, they didn’t get caught in some of this mess, unless they missed a payment and were being pursued for being delinquent.

JPMorgan officials said three months ago that one of the bank’s units had made errors in the handling of mortgages covered by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The lender will also contribute $15 million to a fund to go toward additional damages.

Click here for the full report from AOL Real Estate

Goldman Sachs Admits Bailout Cash Went To Offshore Banks

July 26, 2010

USA Today

By Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register

Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia.

Asked the significance of the list, Grassley said, “I hope it’s as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money.”

He added, “We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on … we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world.”

Grassley said he was reserving judgment on the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer money ending up overseas until he learns more about the 32 entities.

Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday’s report.

Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government’s bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world’s largest insurance company.

Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG’s collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

Shouldn’t Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions “before they collect the taxpayers’ dollars?” Grassley asked. “It’s a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn’t be getting disaster aid.”

Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

“I think we didn’t get the information because they consider it very embarrassing,” Grassley said, “and they ought to consider it very embarrassing.”

The initial $85 billion to bail out AIG was supplemented by an additional $49.1 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, as well as additional funds from the Federal Reserve. AIG’s debt to U.S. taxpayers totals $133.3 billion outstanding.

“The only thing I can tell you is that people have the right to know, and the Fed and the public’s business ought to be more public,” Grassley said.

The list of companies receiving money includes a few familiar foreign banks, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays.

DZ AG Deutsche Zantrake Genossenschaftz Bank, a German cooperative banking group, received $1.2 billion, more than a quarter of the money Goldman paid out.

Warren, in testimony Wednesday, said that the rescue of AIG “distorted the marketplace by turning AIG’s risky bets into fully guaranteed transactions. Instead of forcing AIG and its counterparties to bear the costs of the company’s failure, the government shifted those costs in full onto taxpayers.”

Grassley stressed the importance of transparency in the marketplace, as well as in the government’s actions.

“Just like the government, markets need more transparency, and consequently this is some of that transparency because we’ve got to rebuild confidence to make the markets work properly,” Grassley said.

AIG received the bailout of $85 billion at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was led at the time by Timothy Geithner. He now is U.S. treasury secretary.

“I think it proves that he knew a lot more at the time than he told,” Grassley said. “And he surely knew where this money was going to go. If he didn’t, he should have known before they let the money out of their bank up there.”

An attempt to reach Geithner Friday night through the White House public information office was unsuccessful.

Grassley has for years pushed to give the Government Accountability Office more oversight of the Federal Reserve.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat, said he would propose that the House subcommittee on oversight and investigations convene hearings on the need for more Federal Reserve oversight. Braley is a member of the subcommittee.

Braley said of Geithner, “I would assume he would be someone we would want to hear from because he would have firsthand knowledge.”

Braley also noted that the AIG bailout was negotiated under President George W. Bush, a Republican.

He said he was confident that the financial regulatory reform bill signed by President Obama this week would help provide better oversight than the AIG bailout included.

“There was no regulatory framework in place,” Braley said. “We had to put something in place to begin reining them in. I’m confident they will begin to be able to do that.

Click Here For Full Report

Goldman Sachs Admits Bailout Cash Went To Offshore Banks

July 26, 2010

USA Today

By Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register

Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia.

Asked the significance of the list, Grassley said, “I hope it’s as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money.”

He added, “We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on … we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world.”

Grassley said he was reserving judgment on the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer money ending up overseas until he learns more about the 32 entities.

Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday’s report.

Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government’s bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world’s largest insurance company.

Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG’s collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

Shouldn’t Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions “before they collect the taxpayers’ dollars?” Grassley asked. “It’s a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn’t be getting disaster aid.”

Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

“I think we didn’t get the information because they consider it very embarrassing,” Grassley said, “and they ought to consider it very embarrassing.”

The initial $85 billion to bail out AIG was supplemented by an additional $49.1 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, as well as additional funds from the Federal Reserve. AIG’s debt to U.S. taxpayers totals $133.3 billion outstanding.

“The only thing I can tell you is that people have the right to know, and the Fed and the public’s business ought to be more public,” Grassley said.

The list of companies receiving money includes a few familiar foreign banks, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays.

DZ AG Deutsche Zantrake Genossenschaftz Bank, a German cooperative banking group, received $1.2 billion, more than a quarter of the money Goldman paid out.

Warren, in testimony Wednesday, said that the rescue of AIG “distorted the marketplace by turning AIG’s risky bets into fully guaranteed transactions. Instead of forcing AIG and its counterparties to bear the costs of the company’s failure, the government shifted those costs in full onto taxpayers.”

Grassley stressed the importance of transparency in the marketplace, as well as in the government’s actions.

“Just like the government, markets need more transparency, and consequently this is some of that transparency because we’ve got to rebuild confidence to make the markets work properly,” Grassley said.

AIG received the bailout of $85 billion at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was led at the time by Timothy Geithner. He now is U.S. treasury secretary.

“I think it proves that he knew a lot more at the time than he told,” Grassley said. “And he surely knew where this money was going to go. If he didn’t, he should have known before they let the money out of their bank up there.”

An attempt to reach Geithner Friday night through the White House public information office was unsuccessful.

Grassley has for years pushed to give the Government Accountability Office more oversight of the Federal Reserve.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat, said he would propose that the House subcommittee on oversight and investigations convene hearings on the need for more Federal Reserve oversight. Braley is a member of the subcommittee.

Braley said of Geithner, “I would assume he would be someone we would want to hear from because he would have firsthand knowledge.”

Braley also noted that the AIG bailout was negotiated under President George W. Bush, a Republican.

He said he was confident that the financial regulatory reform bill signed by President Obama this week would help provide better oversight than the AIG bailout included.

“There was no regulatory framework in place,” Braley said. “We had to put something in place to begin reining them in. I’m confident they will begin to be able to do that.

Click Here For Full Reportv

Goldman Sachs Admits Bailout Cash Went To Offshore Banks

July 26, 2010

USA Today

By Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register

Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia.

Asked the significance of the list, Grassley said, “I hope it’s as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money.”

He added, “We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on … we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world.”

Grassley said he was reserving judgment on the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer money ending up overseas until he learns more about the 32 entities.

Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday’s report.

Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government’s bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world’s largest insurance company.

Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG’s collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

Shouldn’t Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions “before they collect the taxpayers’ dollars?” Grassley asked. “It’s a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn’t be getting disaster aid.”

Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

“I think we didn’t get the information because they consider it very embarrassing,” Grassley said, “and they ought to consider it very embarrassing.”

The initial $85 billion to bail out AIG was supplemented by an additional $49.1 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, as well as additional funds from the Federal Reserve. AIG’s debt to U.S. taxpayers totals $133.3 billion outstanding.

“The only thing I can tell you is that people have the right to know, and the Fed and the public’s business ought to be more public,” Grassley said.

The list of companies receiving money includes a few familiar foreign banks, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays.

DZ AG Deutsche Zantrake Genossenschaftz Bank, a German cooperative banking group, received $1.2 billion, more than a quarter of the money Goldman paid out.

Warren, in testimony Wednesday, said that the rescue of AIG “distorted the marketplace by turning AIG’s risky bets into fully guaranteed transactions. Instead of forcing AIG and its counterparties to bear the costs of the company’s failure, the government shifted those costs in full onto taxpayers.”

Grassley stressed the importance of transparency in the marketplace, as well as in the government’s actions.

“Just like the government, markets need more transparency, and consequently this is some of that transparency because we’ve got to rebuild confidence to make the markets work properly,” Grassley said.

AIG received the bailout of $85 billion at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was led at the time by Timothy Geithner. He now is U.S. treasury secretary.

“I think it proves that he knew a lot more at the time than he told,” Grassley said. “And he surely knew where this money was going to go. If he didn’t, he should have known before they let the money out of their bank up there.”

An attempt to reach Geithner Friday night through the White House public information office was unsuccessful.

Grassley has for years pushed to give the Government Accountability Office more oversight of the Federal Reserve.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat, said he would propose that the House subcommittee on oversight and investigations convene hearings on the need for more Federal Reserve oversight. Braley is a member of the subcommittee.

Braley said of Geithner, “I would assume he would be someone we would want to hear from because he would have firsthand knowledge.”

Braley also noted that the AIG bailout was negotiated under President George W. Bush, a Republican.

He said he was confident that the financial regulatory reform bill signed by President Obama this week would help provide better oversight than the AIG bailout included.

“There was no regulatory framework in place,” Braley said. “We had to put something in place to begin reining them in. I’m confident they will begin to be able to do that.

Click Here For Full Report

JP Morgan’s New Global ‘Plan’

June 23, 2010

The New York Times

By Eric Dash

JPMorgan Chase emerged from the financial crisis as one of the strongest banks on American soil. Now it wants to make up lost ground overseas. The bank’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, announced a series of management changes toward that end on Tuesday, appointing one of his closest lieutenants to a new position with a mandate to start a global corporate banking business and scout out opportunities in Europe, Latin America and Asia.

The executive, Heidi G. Miller, was named president of the bank’s international operations and chairwoman of a new global advisory committee made up of about a dozen senior bankers and regional business heads. The new role should further cement Ms. Miller’s standing as one of the most powerful women on Wall Street.

Ms. Miller’s appointment set off other changes to the bank’s organizational chart. Michael J. Cavanagh, JPMorgan’s chief financial officer, will take over for Ms. Miller as head of the bank’s Treasury and Securities division, which focuses on back-office recordkeeping and securities lending for big institutional investors like hedge funds and pension funds.

Douglas L. Braunstein, 49, the head of investment banking for the Americas, will succeed Mr. Cavanagh, 44. Mr. Braunstein’s successor has not been named.

Click here for the full report.

Foreclosure Aid Only Saves Few; Leaves Many Out

April 14, 2010

FOXNews.com

A watchdog panel overseeing the financial bailouts says the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage aid program lags well behind the foreclosure crisis and leaves too many families out.

The Congressional Oversight Panel says in a report released Wednesday that the administration projects only one million families will end up with lower monthly payments as a result of the program. The report says six million families are more than two months behind with their payments, and 200,000 more families receive foreclosure notices each month.

A year and a half after launching the program, “Treasury is still fighting to get its foreclosure programs off the ground,” Elizabeth Warren, who heads the independent panel set up by Congress, told reporters Tuesday.

Warren warned that borrowers who have their monthly payments lowered as a result of the program still could lose their homes because the payments remain high and many Americans are facing new financial strains.

“Redefault signals the single worst form of failure” by the Treasury Department, said Warren, who is a professor at Harvard Law School. “Billions of taxpayer dollars will be spent and families will nonetheless lose their homes.”

The main program gives money to mortgage investors and collection companies that reduce borrowers’ monthly payments.

Treasury highlighted the panel’s finding that the administration has continued adjusting and expanding the program as the crisis deepens.

“We strongly agree with the (panel’s) assessment that foreclosures are at an unacceptable high rate, which is why this program has been designed to prevent avoidable foreclosures,” Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in a statement. She said the program was not designed to prevent every foreclosure, and “we cannot help those who simply bought a home
they could not afford.”

The report comes a day after top banking industry executives expressed skepticism about a new plan designed to help troubled borrowers by forgiving a portion of their debt.

The executives told lawmakers on Tuesday they are reducing the amount that troubled borrowers owe on their home loans only in limited cases. That’s because consumers who are paying their mortgages on time are likely to see such reductions as unfair, they said.

Such programs “could raise issues of fairness,” said Sanjiv Das, Citigroup’s top mortgage executive, who appeared in front of the House Financial Services committee with top executives from Bank of America, Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase.

David Lowman, chief executive of Chase’s mortgage business, told lawmakers that large-scale mortgage principal reduction “could be harmful to consumers, investors and future mortgage market conditions.”

Chase estimates that reducing home loan balances so that no homeowners would owe more than the value of their homes would cost up to $900 billion, with $150 billion of that borne by the government.

Many homeowners aren’t satisfied. After the hearing was over, dozens of activists from the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America chased Lowman through the marble-floored hallways of the Rayburn House Office Building, pressing him to do more to help troubled homeowners.

He did not respond to their requests for a meeting and eventually left the building with the assistance of police.

The four mortgage companies represented at the hearing are the largest in the country and have come under fire for not doing enough to help borrowers as part of the Obama administration’s $75 billion mortgage relief program.

Through March, more than 230,000 homeowners have completed loan modifications. That’s about 21 percent of the 1.1 million borrowers who began the program over the past year, the Treasury Department said Tuesday.

Last month, the administration expanded the program, launching a plan to reduce the amount some troubled borrowers owe on their home loans and give jobless homeowners a temporary break. But the details of those programs are expected to take months to work out.

President Barack Obama’s housing secretary, Shaun Donovan, said in a speech to a group of mortgage bankers Tuesday that administration did not foresee how much effort it would take for the mortgage industry to launch the program.

Many mortgage companies, he said, “were too slow to make the investments in systems and staff needed” to put the program in place. But he noted that many families are getting relief.

Republicans, however, say the Obama administration should abandon the effort and focus on creating jobs.

“The market needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and manipulation so we can revive our economy and get on with a full housing market recovery,” said Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the committee’s senior Republican.

Click here for full report