Banks Rebel Against Push to Rewrite Mortgage Loans

[bobbyw24]

By JAMES R. HAGERTY

Some big U.S. banks are pushing back against the idea that they should slash mortgage balances for millions of troubled borrowers.

Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, argued that "to save homes on a large scale, we must move past temporary modifications in interest rates or terms and focus on permanent principal reductions that result in truly sustainable mortgages."

To write down loans enough to bring those debts down to no more than the home values would cost $700 billion to $900 billion, J.P. Morgan Chase estimated in its testimony. That would include costs of $150 billion to the Federal Housing Administration and government-controlled mortgage investors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the bank said.

J.P. Morgan also said broad-based principal reductions could raise costs for borrowers if mortgage investors demand more interest to compensate for that risk. Borrowers probably would have to increase down payments, and credit standards would tighten further, the bank said.

Wells Fargo said principal forgiveness "is not an across-the-board solution" and "needs to be used in a very careful manner." Bank of America said that it supports principal reductions for some customers whose debts are high in relation to their home values and who face financial hardships but that "solutions must balance the interests of the customer and the (mortgage) investor."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180320655553224.html?m od=rss_com_mostcommentart

[bobbyw24]

With millions of homeowners losing their homes to foreclosure during this recession, megabank JPMorgan Chase plans to argue against the Obama administration's latest weapon in its fight to stem the problem -- principal cuts for struggling borrowers -- by citing the sanctity of contracts and the borrower's "promise to repay."

In testimony to be delivered Tuesday afternoon, David Lowman, chief executive officer for home lending at the "Too Big To Fail" behemoth, will fight back against the program which calls for lenders and investors to decrease the outstanding debt owed on a home mortgage. While his competitors at Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup plan to dance around the issue -- judging from their prepared remarks -- Lowman cut right to it: borrowers don't deserve it.

"Like all loans, mortgage contracts are based on a promise to repay money borrowed," Lowman's prepared remarks read. "Importantly, there is no provision in the mortgage contract, express or implied, that the lender will restore equity or reduce the repayment amount if the value of the collateral -- be it a home, a car or a stock market investment -- depreciates.

"If we re-write the mortgage contract retroactively to restore equity to any mortgage borrower because the value of his or her home declined, what responsible lender will take the equity risk of financing mortgages in the future? What responsible regulator would want lenders to take such risk?"

In January, the firm's chairman and chief executive, Jamie Dimon, told the panel investigating the roots of the financial crisis that, prior to the collapse, JPMorgan Chase did not conduct any stress tests that showed house prices falling.

"I would say that was probably one of the big misses," Dimon said. "We stressed almost everything else, but we didn't see home prices going down 40 percent."

So the firm made loans, arguably not knowing that the value of the assets backing those loans would one day significantly decline in value.

Story continues below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/jpmorgan-chase-argues-aga_n_534898.html