Comments on: What Should Happen to Angelo Mozilo?

By: Kirk Kinder

Kirk Kinder — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:19:27 +0000

I am sure Mazilo knew these were toxic loans, but you have to show that he intentionally de-frauded investors or the government. And, as LOL points out, these loans met the definition of the GSE prime loans. Maybe the government is partly to blame, and I think that is part of the reason the SEC is involved. They have so much egg on their face it is ridiculous. Now they need to crack some skulls, even if unjustified, to justify their existence.

I am a fee-only financial planner, and they are already lining up new regulations and hoops I have to jump through due to Madoff even though none of their ideas provide any real protection to the consumer. It just gives the appearance…kinda like taking your shoes off at the airport.

By: Spokane Al

Spokane Al — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:07:42 +0000

I tend to hold my opinion and let both sides argue their cases. We have only heard one side of the argument.

It is important to remember that the SEC cannot put someone in jail. They can only levy fines.

By: LOL

LOL — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:04:21 +0000

Nothing should happen to Mozilo. After reading the statement, the SEC is really just arguing word semantics in countrywide filings. The SEC is saying that they don't agree with the definition of 'prime loans' given in the Countrywide fillings. For those interested, Countrywide basically said Prime loans are any loans that meet GSE (Fannie Mae, etc) standards of being "conventional" — regardless of borrowers FICO score.

It really looks like the SEC complaint is saying that CountryWide did not do the job that the SEC was supposed to do: uncover and blatantly point out systemic risk.

Mazilo was a bad business man? Yes.
Is being a bad business man that same as fraud? No.