Talk:OneWest Bank

Unclear Language

"On November 25, 2009, Judge Spinner in Long Island, New York penalized OneWest for their “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” actions in trying to work out a distressed mortgage, by canceling the debt in favor of the borrower.[5]" So what is being said here? Why is "trying to work out a distressed mortgage, by canceling the debt in favor of the borrower" also “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive”? MrSativa (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I updated this section with the WSJ article from 2017 in which Judge Spinner took himself off the case, and his decision was overturned. The Judge did make this statement and perhaps in his ruling there are details.

This whole section, however, is poorly written with links no longer active, and a link to a Plaintiff's lawyer, which no longer works. http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?page_id=10

Were and are there problems with foreclosure with One West Bank? Yes, however many articles are biased and proven to be fake news: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-treasury-foreclosed-homes-mnuchin-232038

August 1974: Ossie Lofton begins living in home 24 April 2003: Ossie Lofton obtains a reverse mortgage on the home. The loan is a 3-party loan, the 3 parties being Lofton, Financial Freedom (then a subsidiary of Lehman Bros.) and the US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The terms of the mortgage specify that if the home is no longer the primary residence of the borrower, foreclosure can occur, but only with approval of the US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Similarly, foreclosure for not insuring the home can only occur with the approval of the Secretary. 18 October 2011: Following an "alleged" gap in property insurance, the bank "force placed insurance" on the property using what they considered to be a "line of credit loan advance" in the amount of $1,883.30. 9 November 2011: $1,460 of this $1,883.30 was paid, leaving a $423.30 balance on the "loan advance" associated with the insurance payment. Lofton was allegedly unaware of this balance, because of the way it was classified on the mortgage statement. 29 May 2014: The US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, through his agency's contractor DEVAL, approves of foreclosure of the home. (see page 22 of sequence #4 in the 2014 case). 24 November 2014: OneWest files for foreclosure of the home on the grounds that the borrower allegedly no longer lived at the home. 23 December 2014: OneWest voluntarily withdraws the foreclosure filing. March 2015: Ossie Lofton receives a letter from Financial Freedom (a loan servicing subsidiary of OneWest) informing her that she owed $423.30. 11 March 2015: Ossie Lofton paid $423.00 to Financial Freedom 03 August 2015: CIT Group acquires Onewest including Financial Freedom. August 2015: Ossie Lofton got a letter from Financial Freedom asking for payment of "$.3" by 8 September 2015, and stating that she would be subjected to foreclosure if she did not make the payment by that date. 17 August 2015: Ossie Lofton sent a check to Financial Freedom which said "$.3" and said "three cents". 23 October 2015: The US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Julian Castro , through his agency's contractor NOVAD, approves of foreclosure of the home. (see page 21 of sequence #3 in the 2016 case). 20 April 2016: CIT Bank files a foreclosure action demanding the full amount of the mortgage, alleging that Lofton "failed to perform an obligation under the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage by failing to maintain property insurance". 10 October 2016: CIT Bank voluntarily dismissed the foreclosure action. 31 October 2016: Lofton filed 6 counterclaims against CIT Bank: 2 counts of violation of the Florida Consumer Collections Act, age discrimination in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, failure to provide adverse action notice in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, malicious prosecution, and slander of title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofway (talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

4th largest bank failure?

At the time IndyMac was the 3rd largest bank failure. Yet it is listed as the 4th largest bank failure. This is incorrect. If it means of all time, then this is also incorrect. http://www.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2008/07/15/the-10-biggest-us-bank-failures.html

Name of Article

I propose to change the name of this article to OneWest Bank, which is the new name of IndyMac Bank. Any ideas/opposition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that the name has been changed, the article makes no obvious mention in the first few paragraphs of the name change and it

makes no sense whatsoever if read how it is written. And now that OneWest is in the news for getting a federal bailout yet having no mercy for foreclosures, I think that it is all the more important to have the article be self-coherent at the very least.207.62.186.78 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OneWest Bank and IndyMac Bank are not the same entity. OneWest Bank was a newly created bank that purchased substantially all of the assets and some of the liabilities of IndyMac Federal Bank through the FDIC. There was no merger, so it is incorrect to refer to OneWest Bank as "OneWest Bank, FSB f/k/a IndyMac Bank, FSB" or similar. Most of IndyMac Bank's liabilities stayed with the FDIC and are subject to the FDIC's claims process. Also, the year in which OneWest Bank was founded is 2009. It is incorrect to use the year in which IndyMac Bank was founded. This information is obtainable on the FDIC's web site and is set forth in court documents filed throughout the nation. I hope this is helpful. Ss11berks (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Terms & abbreviations need explaining or to become links

1. There are a number of terms & abbreviations that need explaining or be made into links, viz. 10-K, 10-Q, & FHLB.

2. SEC is used without explanation, I assume that this is the Securities and Exchange Commission .

3. FDIC is used several times without explanation. Near the end of the article is Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which I take to be the same thing but the two are not used together.

4. In the third para of Collapse it says <quote>the losses left IndyMac Bank barely "Well Capitalized", based on risk based capital levels</quote>. I think I understand what is meant by 'Well Capitalized' here but a reference to the different categories would be helpful. Also mentioning 'risk based capital levels' should be explained or linked, especially as it reads (to me at least) as if IndyMac's rating might be different from 'Well Capitalized' if a different method of analysing capital adequacy was used.

5. In the seventh para of Collapse it says <quote>cut IndyMac's counterparty credit risk rating to "CCC", just a few steps above default, from "B", the fifth highest junk level</quote>. There should be some explanation of credit ratings. Also I think that 'the fifth highest junk level' applies to the 'CCC' rating but it reads as if it applies to the 'B' rating.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Events leading to collapse?

The article describes the actual collapse well, but what about the events leading to and reasons for the collapse? Can someone add a new section why and how it got to this point?. -- P199 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you want to do this P199?

Some reasons not to do this: • There are of course attempts by parties that work for Senator Schumer to obfuscate the information in this excellent article. • It would be a pure op-ed piece and loosely veiled disguise if the article were to describe from some point in history the reasons for collapse. There have been several attempts in this direction with stock prices quoted. You can quote stock prices for each day over a period of 5 years if you want, but the information isn’t meant to add to the article but to confuse and make the timeline less intense for the U.S. Senator. Other attempts by supporters of the Senator are changing the referenced articles to news organizations that are friendly to him. (From an AP source in Pasadena to a source at the New York Times for example) • Also, as time passes, subsequent articles written in the press and possibly quoted here are not as factual as an article written the day-of or the day-after the event. As time passes, a certain camp may come to the defense of the Senator and try to re-write history and his involvement in the run on the bank. -- Ab3214 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While the Schumer letter certainly should not be removed or modified, it should certainly be balanced.

• There were far more dire and far more widely-circulated predictions for IndyMac many months before Schumer.

• The company itself announced on May 12 that it could fall below regulatory capital requirements and that it was attempting to raise capital.

• The next day, at least one former FHLB credit analyst concluded that IndyMac would have to raise more capital to remain "well capitalized".

• The article mischaracterized through omission Indymac's own announcement of July 7.

I have attempted to fix the deficiencies but I am new to Wikipedia and not familiar with the citing procedure. For the record I reference the company's blog - http://theimbreport.com/ , three articles by the former FHLB analyst (the first one obliquely):

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10410115/1/indymac-seems-hardy-enough-to-survive.html http://www.thestreet.com/story/10411921/1/bank-stocks-are-bad-but-big-failures-unlikely.html http://www.thestreet.com/story/10416473/1/indymac-seeks-to-preserve-capital.html

and one particularly vitriolic anti-IndyMac commentary by one of the most widely-circulated financial commentators in the business:

http://www.thestreet.com/p/_search/rmoney/jimcramerblog/10396333.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlawbailey (talk • contribs) 01:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)--Dlawbailey (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. There were obviously events or information published that caused the Senator to write the letter in question, which should also be represented in the article. This is not to downplay the impact of the letter, which was definitely the trigger causing the collapse to happen when it did (short term cause), but there have to be other, more fundamental problems with the company that also played a part (long term cause). I'm a little concerned that users such as Ab3214 and IndyCust (potential bias) are so keen to exclude from the article information about any concerns raised prior to the date of the letter, including guidance from the company itself. - Richc80 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You are attempting to use two personalities (Cramer \ MSNBC & Van Dorn \ the street.com) that talk about news or write about news as ‘news sources’.

The key point is that you said ‘Cramer said….’ And ‘Van Dorn said….’. They are not news sources and should not be used as such. They are both personalities that work for entertainment or news organizations that state their own opinions.

We want to know what the players in this collapse did. Indymac, the U.S. Regulators and Senator Schumer.

Opinions from reporters or talk show personalities are not of importance to detailing the events.

It appears there is an attempt to justify Senator Schumer's actions with any quotes that can be found.

Let the Senator and history speak for itself. [User:indycust] (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indycust, the point of the Jim Cramer reference was to give context, but no matter - forget it. There is no rational way to contend that Philip Van Doorn - a former FHLB analyst reporting on the 10Q - is not a news source. I will avoid his mild conclusions - reasonable as they were - and simply put in his verifiable reporting - along with sources to verify it. This article is, at present, clearly slanted and presents by over-emphasis and omission a biased conclusion rather than journalistic fact. However, I will simply quote from the Office of Thrift Supervision itself and the company's own 10Q to rectify the false impression and give proper context. The problem with the contention that Schumer broke the bank will be obvious to the reader. The OTS itself admits that IndyMac was almost certainly doomed without capital, likewise IndyMac itself. The liquidity crisis may have been the last straw, but the bank was failing due to under-capitalization resulting from intense losses - this per the OTS and the 10Q.--216.254.24.133 (talk)--Dlawbailey (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 06:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer Ab3214's question: I am not even remotely related to this bank or even know any of the people involved, nor do I care about anyone's motive or politics. But from an encyclopedic standpoint, this article is incomplete without background info on the collapse. No bank collapses just because of one letter. -- P199 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I QUOTE THE Office of Thrift Supervision - almost word-for word - and IndyMac's OWN 10-Q - again almost word for word and IndyCust removes them. Is the Office of Thrift Supervision's FACT SHEET not FACTUAL enough???? Is the regulator to be incompletely quoted??? There were NO "GUESSES" in what I wrote. I was reporting the FACTS as the OTS reported and THE OPINION OF THE COMPANY ITSELF.

To suggest that when the OTS says IndyMac had faint hope of remaining well-capitalized and then IndyMac ADMITS IN ITS 10-Q that it was going to be undercapitalized, I think that is pretty darn relevent. "IndyCust" - apparently a super-loyal customer of the troubled bank - should read the firm's 10-Q.

Needless to say, I am putting the section back. If the sentence about the "bank run" is left in, then certainly - THE WORDS OF THE OTS AND FACTS AND STATEMENTS FROM INDYMAC'S 10-Q should be!!!!--216.254.24.133 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The VERIFIABLE FACTS about IndyMac's capital position are now in a separate section. The Title of the section is "Events Leading To Collapse". The OTS - both a prima facie authority AND a critic of Schumer - briefly outlined the nine months of crisis before the collapse and IndyCust REMOVES HALF THE ENTRY. That seems a little outrageous to me. Look, the story goes - issuance/underwriting/market problems, capital problem, looming deposit liquidity problem, actual deposit liquidity problem. Did Schumer make it worse? Maybe.--Dlawbailey (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NICE TRY, IndyCust. The lead 'graph is STRAIGHT FROM OTS FACTSHEET, altered only for grammar and citation. PLEASE READ CITATION. --Dlawbailey (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The "needed time" conclusion by the OTS is both opinion AND unverified by events. The ONLY opinion I cite is the OPINION OF THE BANK ITSELF. There is no evidence cited (and no evidence that I know of extant) that IndyMac would have been or even could have been successful in securing capital - PER IndyMac itself. Your constant attempts to put the words "protect depositors' funds" into the title of the section begs the central question of whether Indymac's mismanagement of capital or the withdrawal of deposits at the end is to blame for the failure. This, despite the fact that IndyMac admitted that up to 37% of its deposits were in REGULATORY JEOPARDY as of June, 30. Even as I write, you are mischaracterizing Indymac's actions and you continue to delete the SUMMARY OF EVENTS BY THE REGULATOR. This is tendentious in the extreme. IndyCust, I'm sorry I have to ask this, but what is/was your relationship with IndyMac bank? I am a registered independent in Washington state who has no relationship whatever to Charles Schumer OR IndyMac. --Dlawbailey (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Even more tendentious, uncited claims. IndyCust, what is/was your relationship to IndyMac bank?--Dlawbailey (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And because I am sure you are going to try and re-insert it, what evidence is there for the OTS claim that IndyMac "needed time"? What evidence is there - from the financials, from Indymac's bankers, from ANYBODY - that a capital infusion or buyer was in the offing? Even if we believed that at the time it wrote, OTS believed that GSE-qualifying mortgages were going to save IndyMac, SURELY, in the light of the Fannie and Freddie troubles, we must question such a conclusion. What IndyMac "tried" is immaterial. They were SPENDING CAPITAL up to September 2007, per, well, THE LINE ABOVE! Again I must ask, although I don't like to, whether you, IndyCust, had or have any relationship with Indymac bank?--Dlawbailey (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than those made BY THE INSTITUTION ITSELF, which quantify and analyze contingencies, clearly, clearly NO FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS should be included. OTS "needed time" claim cites no buyers and depends on beliefs about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which clearly, clearly must now come into question. --Dlawbailey (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Steps specified by IndyCust are out of time order with other events and improperly worded. I'm fine with having any part of the OTS document that I, of course, cited first used in the article, but only if it is properly backed up by evidence rather than contradicted by failures. What I cited from the 10-Q represent market and regulatory problems which many, many acts such as cost-cutting were meant to deal with. IndyMac's efforts had failed to solve these problems up until the collapse. The 10-Qs are full of scores of efforts - as we would assume - but they had no material affect. By April, 2008, after the Moody's and S+P MBS downgrades, IndyMac was **arguably** already insolvent - 37% of its deposits in regulatory jeopardy. Did Schumer sink the bank? I think it was already sunk, but clearly that's a question for history. The point is to lay out the capital adequacy problems, how they could have affected liquidity and then describe the ultimate liquidity crisis.

I have asked for a Third Opinion.--Dlawbailey (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dlawbailey - It looks as though your request was removed with the comment "5 or more editors disputing on Talk:IndyMac Federal Bank#Events leading to collapse? - removed." How about listing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment? In the meantime, would yourself & Indycust be willing to refrain from editing the article in order to allow this issue to be discussed and hopefully resolved? - Richc80 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I would. Thanks so much for looking into it. I'll tell you what, I'll even let others ask for comment until tonight. Meantime, here's a cite that might help on the reference to Moody's and S+P, vis-a-vis the timeline:

http://www.housingwire.com/2008/04/23/moodys-downgrades-388-alt-a-rmbs-classes-warns-on-254-aaa-rated-tranches/

I don't know whether that was the date the particular securities IndyMac cites were downgraded, but it gives an idea of the time period in which Moody's was downgrading literally hundreds of tranches.

Meanwhile, it seems very important to IndyCust to use those words "save depositors." But there are literally hundreds of things a business does to cut costs every day. The point is that Indymac was forced to do the most radical possible ones AND, relative to, say, WaMu, IndyMac seemed unable or unwilling to raise capital.

Finally, in that IndyCust cites Friedman, Billings, Ramsey analyst Paul Miller's July action, perhaps we should note that he also cut his target on the stock to $1 from $3 and said the bank's year-end book value would likely fall below $4.50 on May 13, 2008, in response to the 10-Q. IndyCust makes the Miller downgrade look like it was only in response to the liquidity crisis.

Miller, who rated the stock "underperform," said at time that with an estimated capital cushion of just $107 million, which includes stock issued to date, IndyMac would struggle with losses of over $200 million through year-end.

His concern was that IndyMac "has minimal capital cushion, but losses will continue at least through year-end" and he concluded that "IndyMac needs to raise additional capital - the question is not if, but how much and at what cost."

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN1336549320080513

--Dlawbailey (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wall St Journal Says

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), whose job it actually was to regulate IndyMac, took a different view. "The immediate cause of the closing," the OTS wrote in a press release, "was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York." The OTS added: "In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts."

The $4 Billion Senator, Wall Street Journal July 15, 2008; Page A18 [1]

Pierre.cardoone (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure of my relationship to IndyMac: I live in the United States. (that is all)

This is a landmark article for Wikipedia as it sheds light on how current conditions influence the documentation of historical events. At this point in time in the U.S. we are all impacted by high gas prices, an upcoming election, and other influences in our own personal finances. These feelings are reflected when we discuss and write about a bank failing or our economy (or anything). Indymac did not start out as a Wikipedia article until a few days ago UNTIL it collapsed; which is also a reflection of how we feel today. Our feelings are absolutely influencing the headlines of the article and the words or quotes we choose. I can clearly see some truth by simply scratching the surface of the quotes in the article. For example, although meant to describe a foretold collapse, the ‘recent events’ also show the struggle that indymac was undergoing to take steps to protect the depositors funds. But, the headline was ‘events that led to collapse’. The words and steps were there in the article, but our own feelings influenced the headline to simply portray the collapse.

There are several attempts even when the steps are disclosed to say that they only occurred AFTER the FDIC took over the institution, but when the ‘recent events’ were 1st placed in the article it was the intention of the author to describe events that occurred BEFORE June 26.

How is it that the ‘Recent Events’ can simultaneously “Lead to a Collapse” (as original title stated) AND when steps that Indymac was taking are embedded in the same sentences occur only AFTER the FDIC took over Indymac?

The answer is that Indymac must have been taking steps BEFORE June 26 to protect its depositors funds as clearly documented in ‘Recent Events’.

fyi. I will not stay quiet as requested. User:Indycust (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, PierreCardoone - you're not telling me that the Wall Street Journal OPINION page blamed a Democratic Senator rather than a failure of Bush Administration regulators, are you? Shocked!

IndyCust, you seem to be forgetting the central question here: On June 30, IndyMac was going to have to report to regulators on its capital condition - June 30. Did IndyMac have enough capital to remain a viable enterprise? If it did, then Senator Schumer's actions precipitated a liquidity crisis at a bank that would otherwise have remained viable. If it didn't, then Senator Schumer was right to warn the public that IndyMac was heading towards insolvency because IndyMac and its regulators had failed to act in any meaningful way. This is an important debate. Both possibilities must pe presented.

Finally, you are totally mischaracterizing the timeline. After spending capital in August and September 2007, IndyMac made its FIRST business plan revision in November, 2007, thus initiating many actions. But the CLOCK that was ticking against them were the changes in the mortgage market. Those are the "Recent Events" summarized in the first two paragraphs of the OTS Fact Sheet. IndyMac's November 2007 business plan failed completely, witness the May 12, 10-Q, wherein they admit that by April, they were certain to fall below regulatory capitalization.

And let's compare regulatory behavior here: With CountryWide, regulators helped force a sale. With Bear Stearns, regulators helped force a sale. OTHER regulators pushed very hard to get new capital into these failing institutions. Where was the capital going to come from for IndyMac? If the answer is "nowhere" then IndyMac was as dead as a doornail, Schumer or no Schumer, because on June 30, the FDIC would have been obliged under the law to stop IndyMac using brokered deposits - 37% of its deposit, rather than the far smaller number of $1.3 billion that was taken out post-Schumer. --96.26.229.115 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge IndyMac Federal Bank with this article

Merge- Two banks literally the same institution. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. -- P199 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sure - I only created it to fill in a redlink. That's fine if you replace it with a redirect and merge the relevant sections. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree, Attempts by P199 and friends of the U.S. Senator to dilute information for nefarious purposes.. -- Ab3214 (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• What. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one opposes (except that nonsense comment by Ab3214), I will merge by tomorrow morning. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Pierre.cardoone (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You merged the wrong direction. The merge was to merge Federal with IndyMac. Instead you merged IndyMac with Federal. Alyeska (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is absurd to have merged the IndyMac Federal Bank article with the OneWest Bank article. Maybe we should also merge all the Hollywood stars who have become married into a single couple's articles? IndyMac Federal Bank was a part of recent history, which now because of the brilliance of some contributors, has been lost. The IndyMac Federal Bank was such a major contributor to the current economic meltdown that it should have unquestionably remained separate. Now, no one using Wikipedia, will be able to get any conception of either what happened, how or with whom. Nice going... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thrift

British people don't know what Thrift is maybe some link would help here. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How much is the FDIC on the hook for?

The Wall Street Journal article cited under External Links says that the estimated cost to the FDIC ranges from US$4 to 8 billion. (POV: a loss of this magnitude is manageable as long as it is not repeated multiple times!) Please incorporate this info into the entry, and update it as as the FDIC makes future press releases.

What fascinates about this collapse is that IndyMac was a subprime originator, not a securitizer like Bear Sterns, or a holder of large amount of subprime collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), like UBS. Given that many mortgagees are in foreclosure (or will be eventually), the entire food chain is contaminated.123.255.30.36 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10426345/1/indymac-insurance-tab-could-hit-8b.html --Dlawbailey (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you should be scared because IndyMac was a huge Alt-A originator. And keep in mind that these days every bank is a securitizer of mortgages, effectively. IndyMac got into the terrible position of not being able to move its mortgages into the MBS market - because they were junk, in my opinion. ;-) --Dlawbailey (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Did depositors with holdings over $100K lose 50% of the excess, or are they somehow being covered under the new $250K limit and the TAGP for non-interest bearing accounts?Kbk (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, Kbk. Although the FDIC insurance limits were raised to 250K less than 90 days after Indymac's failure, the limits were not made retroactive. The same is true for TAGP, although the deposit protection portion of that program mainly benefits business accounts.Coasting (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

All of you should read the Shared Loss Agreements the FDIC entered into with this bank, and other failed thrifts. The losses to the FDIC and the taxpayers will be way more than is being told to the public, due, in part, to the fact that this bank and all the others are still reaping profits from short sales, foreclosures and payments from the FDIC. This is an outrageous scandal and should be widely reported by the mainstream media..... yet it's not. Hmmmm... food for thought. FDIC.com

Discussion on possible political motivation of story written on FBI investigation

--User:Ab3214 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be too early to report this as a historical event.

Since this a news item less than one hour old, I did a quick search and found five articles about this at the time all with same content, but CNN did not reference the FBI as a source but rather “an unnamed source told them the FBI is investigating”. This should set off red flags and ringing bells when you read the story. (Other news organizations are now using the’ sources told them that the FBI is investigating’, but are careful to not say that the FBI told them.)

Of the five stories that came up with the story, one stood out because it had unique wording and was the one referring to the FBI as the source and not that ‘somebody told them about the story’ as CNN is saying in their story.

--User:Ab3214 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like original research; can you verify it with any reliable sources? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ab3214, please read Wikipedias rules on editing. The information you have inserted is not only Original Research (which is banned by Wikipedia), but also bordering on violating accepted rules for biographies on living persons, which can be construed as libel or slander. If you find yourself not able to take away your emotion when you edit on this article, please remove yourself from editing this article altogether, and focus your efforts on other articles. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Split this article

IndyMac Federal Bank is a bridge bank created to handle the remains of IndyMac Bank until the FDIC can liquidate them at reasonable prices instead of fire sale prices. These are two separate entities. The stuff about IndyMac Bancorp can go to the IndyMac Bank article. Keeping the two articles together could cause the two entities to be confused with each other even though one was shut down this year and the other was founded this year by the FDIC. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that the two institutions discussed in this section are quite cleanly separated by date (at no point did they exist concurrently), I see little to be gained by splitting the subjects. The bridge bank is, or should turn out to be, a "footnote" to the Indymac subject and as such, an integral part of it. In the event the activities or longevity of the bridge bank turn out otherwise, the subjects can always be split later.Joe (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Michael Perry

He was the CEO from the beginning till the end. Why no mention of him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.95.38 (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposing split of this page

This article is primarily historical information about the former bank IndyMac. The bulk of the information belongs in a separate article titled IndyMac (rather than IndyMac redirecting to the OneWest Bank page, as is the current situation). The OneWest Bank page can then have information primarily concerned with the new institution. If there's no objections I'll go ahead with this in a week or two. Little Professor (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In the hope of keeping the sordid history of IndyMac Bank relevant, I edited the article to add a new section titled "History of IndyMac Bank" and changed the sections on IndyMac Bank into subsections that begin with "IndyMac." I also added more information about OneWest's history. Also there was a paragraph in the introduction about IndyMac that I moved to the "IndyMac: Introduction" subsection. I also changed the article descriptors to delete any references to IndyMac and deleted the "out of date" box at the top. 72.87.58.36 (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relationship between OneWest and IndyMac

The article doesn't make it clear what the relationship is between these two entities. The last we hear of IndyMac is that their assets will be sold to IMB HoldCo; from then on, the article starts talking about OneWest without transition. Can someone familiar with the situation add some linking bits between the last and second-to-last paragraphs of the "history" section? Thanks, Vectro (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just got this distrubing video

I just got this video sent to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssl5yb7FewA it talks about big problems with the deal that onewest got, anyone know about this? thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

need separate indymac article !!!!!!!!!!!!

indymac still referenced in paper today (feb 2011) will problably continue until some time after fanny and freedy get abolished

we need a quick way to see what indymac is not have to hunt it down through some other article

keep the basic historical indymac info on an indymac page and then point to owb omg or whatever for more recent info (and perhaps rerun of historical info for those who somehow know to go to owb at first) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.27.1 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

done, historic content has been split to IndyMac and tagged with hatnote. Sargdub (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

updates to the Horoski foreclosure

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mnuchins-bank-foreclosed-on-this-couple-now-they-support-trump-1484821802?mod=e2fb

This updates the Horoski foreclosure.

- The judge [ Spinner] who over turned the Mortgage recused himself as he had issues with a OneWest Mortgage: "After the ruling, in a previously unreported twist, senior OneWest executives reviewing the bank’s past-due mortgages came across a delinquent loan made to the judge, a person familiar with the matter said.

The bank asked the judge to recuse himself. He did. Judge Spinner said Wednesday that while he fell behind on his mortgage, this had no bearing on his decision in the Horoskis’ case."

- Their house was foreclosed in 2012: "After Judge Spinner recused himself, a higher court overturned his decision canceling the Horoskis’ loan. The Horoskis’ home was foreclosed on in 2012 and later sold by the bank."

- OneWest, now owned by CIT Group Inc., is still trying to get more than $400,000 from Mrs. Yano-Horoski, she said."

IMHO: Hopefully we can update that section without political grandstanding. This has nothing to do with Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofway (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)