About a month ago we penned an article titled (and asking) "Is Brian Lin The Next Incarnation Of Joe Cassano?" in which we sought to demonstrate just on what flimsy ground Bank of America has based its litigation reserve assumptions: a topic that since then has become the biggest sticking point in the BAC bull thesis. Considering that since then, Bank of America default risk has exploded by over 150% and the stock price has plummeted by half, at least some have grasped the severity of a situation when incremental flawed assumptions are magnified level after level, until we finally get what, as Manal Mehta terms it, is a Bank of America "Subprime CDO." Since this issue is extremely important to the future of the financial system (a bankruptcy of Bank of America would be hundreds of times more severe than Lehman's), below we present in visual, and thus easy to comprehend, format what we previously explaining in a narrative and which once again brings us to our question: will the man behind the BAC litigation reserve fraud be responsible for the next iteration of an AIG-type implosion?
Here is what we said a month ago:
“As an example, even if just the last assumption were changed from Countrywide and Bank of America having to repurchase all, rather than just 40%, of loans that were both in default and breached Countrywide's representations and warranties, then Mr. Lin's estimate of a reasonable settlement would rise from a range of $8.8 to $11 billion to a range of $22 to $27.5 billion. Modifying any of his other three assumptions would cause that range to rise much more."”
And here is Bank of America's fraud upon fraud in chart format: