iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

JPMorgan Chase Warns Investors About Underwater Homeowners Walking Away


First Posted: 05/11/10 02:51 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:25 PM ET

The nation's second-biggest bank is warning investors that underwater homeowners may walk away from their mortgages.

In a Monday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, JPMorgan Chase told investors and regulators that homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth may not continue to make their payments -- even when they're able to.

"Declining home prices have had a significant impact on the collateral value underlying the firm's residential real estate loan portfolio," the bank stated. "In general, the delinquency rate for loans with high LTV [loan-to-value] ratios is greater than the delinquency rate for loans in which the borrower has equity in the collateral.

"While a large portion of the loans with estimated LTV ratios greater than 100% continue to pay and are current, the continued willingness and ability of these borrowers to pay is currently uncertain."

Because of its size and reach, the bank, with more than $2 trillion in assets, is a bellwether for the industry, as well as for the broader economy. If the financial services giant can't reassure investors that underwater homeowners will continue to be willing to make their payments, it's a sign of how much the recent phenomenon of "strategic defaults" has grown.

About one in eight defaults in February were strategic, according to an April 29 research note by a team of Morgan Stanley analysts led by Vishwanath Tirupattur. Strategic defaults are those in which the homeowner could have continued to make payments but chose not to. The rate of strategic defaults has tripled since mid-2007, notes Tirupattur.

Underwater homeowners, those whose homes are worth less than the mortgage, now comprise about a quarter of all homeowners with a mortgage, or about 11.3 million homeowners, according to CoreLogic, a real estate research firm. Another 2.3 million have less than five percent equity in their homes (for example, a homeowner who owes more than $285,000 on a $300,000 house). All told, about 29 percent of all homeowners with a mortgage are either underwater or very close to it.

These are the homeowners most likely to strategically default, research shows. In fact, the deeper underwater homeowners are, the more likely they'll walk away from their mortgage, according to findings by a team of academics at Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

"Such so-called strategic defaults, once rare, are now common enough to jeopardize the already-weak housing and mortgage markets," wrote economists Celia Chen and Cristian deRitis of Moody's Economy.com in an April 13 note. "If the trend continues, strategic defaults could both accelerate the pace of home foreclosures and also make it harder for new borrowers to obtain mortgages. Both factors would in turn worsen the decline in house prices."

For JPMorgan Chase, the problem is getting worse.

As of March 31, 27 percent of the home mortgages in its consumer credit portfolio were worth more than than underlying property, meaning those homeowners are underwater, according to the bank's Monday filing with the SEC. At the end of the previous quarter, which ended Dec. 31 of last year, that rate stood at 26 percent, according to the bank's filing.

Those numbers don't include mortgages the bank acquired through its taxpayer-assisted purchase of failed lender Washington Mutual, the biggest bank failure in U.S. history, or those insured by U.S. government agencies or mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- taxpayers ultimately will pick up whatever losses the bank experiences on those mortgages.

JPMorgan's Washington Mutual loans, though, are detailed in the bank's SEC filing -- and they're even worse than JPMorgan mortgages: The entire portfolio -- $98 billion of unpaid mortgage principal -- is underwater.

And those mortgages are even deeper underwater at the end of this year's first quarter than they were at the end of last year's fourth quarter. The options ARMs loan-to-value ratio was at 113 percent, meaning they were 13 percent underwater; now they're at 119 percent, according to JPMorgan's Monday filing. Home equity loans were 15 percent underwater; now they're 20 percent. Prime mortgages were at 6 percent; they've climbed to 11 percent. Subprime jumped from 10 percent underwater to 13 percent.

A review of recent SEC filings from the three other banks holding at least $1 trillion in assets -- Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup -- did not yield any similar statements warning investors about homeowners walking away from their mortgages.

But the threat posed by strategic defaults has gotten so large that a top executive at taxpayer-supported Freddie Mac posted a note on the firm's website pleading with homeowners to not intentionally walk away from their homes.

"Knowing the costs and factoring in the time horizon, some borrowers have made the calculation that it is better to purposely default on the mortgage. While I understand how that might well be a good decision for certain borrowers, that doesn't make it good social policy," argued Freddie executive vice president Don Bisenius in a May 3 note. His main argument? It affects neighbors' property values.

In a March 8 note, Bisenius contrasted strategic defaulters with "responsible" homeowners.

"But unlike some who walk away from their mortgage obligations -- a practice known as strategic defaults -- most responsible homeowners pay their mortgage regardless of current property values," he wrote.

The firm identified the risk as early as March 2008. But during a conference call with investors and analysts, Dick Syron, Freddie's former chairman and CEO, in noting that the firm had seen a rise, used different terminology to phrase it.

"[T]he term that['s] used for people walking away when they are caught up upside down, more
frequently used in autos than it is in homes, is ruthlessness. Right? And we are seeing an increase in ruthlessness and I think, it is probably not just speculators or investors, but [I] think it is a different period and the changes... we have seen an enormous amount... [have] the potential for changing consumer behavior," Syron said according to a transcript of the call.

It's that change that JPMorgan Chase is warning its investors about.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
The nation's second-biggest bank is warning investors that underwater homeowners may walk away from their mortgages. In a Monday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, JPMorgan Chase tol...
The nation's second-biggest bank is warning investors that underwater homeowners may walk away from their mortgages. In a Monday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, JPMorgan Chase tol...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,037
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (62 total)
04:20 PM on 06/10/2010
If your mortgage is underwater, the right financial move is to walk away....There are costs associated with having a bankruptcy on your record, but renting for 7 years is almost assuredly better than having to earn back the gap between your mortgage and the current value of your house. Handing the keys to the bank is the right move, with the only other option being walking to the bank with your keys and giving them the option of taking your house or changing the terms of your mortgage.
08:20 PM on 06/02/2010
CHASE wants it both ways...they increase "minimum monthly payments" on their Credit Card customers 150% and if you do not agree to pay the inflated amount, they will make sure that your credit rating suffers. At the same time, they happen to hold the MORTGAGE on your home, which they want you to keep current on as well. The hundreds of thousands of people that have both their CREDIT CARDS and their mortgagaes with CHASE have been backed against the wall. CHASE themselves are causing people to default on their CHASE mortgages by diminishing their customers ability to pay both.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
defaultstrategy
08:36 PM on 05/28/2010
www.mystrategichomedefault.com
Free information. Sometimes foreclosure is the best economic decision.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
defaultstrategy
03:13 PM on 05/28/2010
Sometimes a strategic default makes more financial sense. Banks and government guilt consumers into keeping their loans, while the banks unloaded these same loans and bet against them! Maybe strategic defaults will cause the banks to consider loan modification.
10:29 PM on 05/13/2010
Check out this video for an explanation on why banks don't want to refinance or modify loans. It opened my eyes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssl5yb7FewA&feature=player_embedded
01:55 PM on 05/15/2010
I just watched the video - everyone needs to see it. Thanks for posting it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Klarsonent
Semi-retired landlady, small business entrepreneur
10:12 AM on 05/13/2010
Advantages of NOT walking away: You can write off the interest and the property taxes you pay each year when doing your taxes. The total amount is deducted from your gross income, which may move you into a lower tax bracket. However, even if it doesn't, it means you will be paying a lesser amount to the IRS, and the state.

By paying your mortgage and not walking away, you will also salvage your credit rating, which may be needed to "borrow" in the upcoming years. Also, many prospective employers will do a credit check before hiring you to see if you manage your finances well.
01:47 PM on 05/15/2010
The effort of big banks to "guilt" consumers into not walking away is completely the opposite advice they themselves (and their rich investors) live by. Case in point: the Stuyvesant buildings in New York. When the amount owed on the buildings placed the investors completely underwater they walked. And suffered no repercussions - in fact I think most of their investors believed that taking a loss now was better than pouring good money after bad.

Why should the consumer/homeowner who is underwater behave any differently? A home is an investment, not an anchor to drag us under while the rich get richer.

I have compassion for the neighbors but if I do not take care of myself and my family, who will? Not the "too big to fail" banks, that is for sure!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Klarsonent
Semi-retired landlady, small business entrepreneur
10:47 PM on 05/15/2010
"gail1999" I do understand both sides of this issue. And, I know why you are doing it. However, in the long run, it may hurt you; that's all I'm saying. Another problem that comes up when you diss your credit is that your insurance premiums will go up. Yes, even the insurance companies will check your credit periodically.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
porsche996
an inelastic scattering of photons
02:11 AM on 05/13/2010
My condo is now worth about $65,000 because of the speculators that owned units and went belly up fast last year and ran away from these "investments" that they had invested nothing into. Now I'm strapped to the tune of $260,000 in underwater mortgages.

I've stopped paying, I'm walking right after the sale....I seriously want the bank to take this $200,000 hit and eat it, because I won't.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Just another hostage of the poopy heads
03:10 AM on 05/13/2010
The bank won't take the "hi-t" if Fannie/Freddie own the mortgage. We will.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
05:13 AM on 05/13/2010
We all will anyway. When somebody walks away and doesn't pay their mortgage, everyone in the neighborhood pays.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
structurequity
structurequity not oppression
11:32 PM on 05/12/2010
The warning is only to short their investors and cover their asses for each day of this fiscal year they have made out like bandits.
11:09 PM on 05/12/2010
If the banks would freeze current arm payments, re-write loans based on the new market value and not make the "payment" plans so cumbersome, most americans would not walk away. So, if someone purchased a home for $300K and it is now worth $200, why not re-write the loan for $200K. $200 K is better than $0 plus attorney fees, etc. We have friends that tried everything with their A+ credit to either freeze the interest rate, refinance the balance or approve a short sale. The bank said no so they walked away. Now the house sold at a foreclosure sale for the short sale price that they said no to originally. What a waste of time for everyone!!!! It is a racket. The foreclosure attorney got paid, the newspaper got paid (they had to run the foreclosure sale) the new loan officer got paid, moving companies, utility companies twice (you have to pay to start new services).... the list could go on and on.
11:13 AM on 05/13/2010
Why? Why would you expect the bank to just eat $100k? Is there no responsibility on the shoulders of the buyer? You agreed to buy the home at the price it was at, and it was perfectly fine then, what is the problem now?
02:03 PM on 05/15/2010
Get this: a house is an investment! A house is no different than an apartment building that an investor group bought and walked away from because the investment had turned into a loser. The only thing that ties us to an underwater mortgage is sentiment and an outdated middle class value that says we have to be honest and pay our bills even if the rich do not have to be honest and pay their bills. Get over it!

And get out now while you can - the next thing you will see is the big banks and Republicans conspiring to make walking away illegal for consumers - but not for big banks and investor groups.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:48 AM on 06/03/2010
To except the consequences’ of making a bad investment is what the banks should do.
09:38 AM on 05/31/2010
The primary reason is that the bank is only servicing the loan and someone else owns it. Remember, these mortgages were bundled and sold to investors. The banks collect an administrative fee for servicing the loan, but don't own many of them.
07:33 PM on 05/12/2010
Do they want to put everyone in a lifetime of economic slavery, similar to company towns. There is something totally corrupt about ALL of the GOP(Cons, Neocons, Theocons).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
electriclady281
01:09 AM on 05/13/2010
Of COURSE they do!!! They consider us peasants, treat us like expendable peasants, and their constituents, who also suffer from their policies, apparently have accepted that they deserve no better.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bones4209
06:04 PM on 05/12/2010
Low down and no down mortgages are required to purchase PMI to protect the banks. Many who also lose jobs unsuccessfully seek mortgage mods. There is no incentive for banks to grant them in these cases because they foreclose, sell at auction, collect the difference from the PMI and suffer no real loss. Meanwhile there are people like my daughter who put 20% down and paid all closing costs up front in 2004. Until the spring of 2008, she was inundated by mail and calls encouraging her to "Tap that equity", which she never did. None the less she now has home that has lost 45 % of it's value, through no fault of hers. She is far worse off than the no down buyers, she lost real money. The banks won when they securitized the mortgages, again when we bailed them out, and again when they auctioned the homes and collected from PMI companies. My daughter faithfully makes her mortgage payments, but if she decided to do otherwise, I wouldn't really fault her for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Klarsonent
Semi-retired landlady, small business entrepreneur
01:17 PM on 05/16/2010
You are right "bones." Every property I have purchased, I've put a minimum of 20% down; mainly, because I don't like to pay PMI. I am a small time RE investor and have been doing it for approx. 20 years now. You win some and you lose some. That's the name of the game - no matter what you put your money in.
03:02 PM on 05/12/2010
The key point left out of the article is that the real effects of strategic defaults have not been seen yet because the government continues to own/or underwrite 96.5% of mortgages (theis past quarter). If it is left up to the banks (and not the gov't) to take on the risk associated with making the home loan, interest rates would have to rise dramatically to compensate the banks for the risk of the loan they are making, creating further downward pressure on home prices. The future looks very grim if the government decides to pull support one day...current support levels are unsustainable.
04:16 PM on 05/12/2010
The deeper underlying fact left out is that all the loans and derivative paper based on these mortgages are based on a fantasy price or value for the houses/properties themselves called mark to model valuation. If they foreclose on properties, the value becomes marked to market, or whatever they can sell the property for in today's market, and all the derivatives of that foreclosed and sold property also adjust to the value of the market price of the original asset, which gives us unknown numbers of layers of whammy at the same time potentially leading to major failures in banks and investment houses as well as the institutional investors who purchased mortgage derivatives. They would rather let people live in houses for free for years than have to have that come to Jesus moment and admit they are really broke.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
12:13 PM on 05/12/2010
It's going to take years for the multiplier effect to turn around and work in a positive way instead of the negative way that it is acting now. For every homeowner that walks away, there is another homeowner, who, for whatever reason, is stuck and cannot walk away. Only time will tell whether or not there are enough of those "stuck" people to keep things going in this economy.
03:38 PM on 05/12/2010
The "stuck" homeowners are going to be a regional phenomenon. States like Arizona, California and Nevada allow recourse-free default; Homeowners cannot be sued for the remaining loan balance on a foreclosed home. However in Massachusetts and New York, homeowners theoretically can be sued by the banks and have their other assets attached by liens.
09:44 AM on 05/31/2010
Also, the churning in the real estate market is largely regional. Some areas were hardly affected by it...they didn't benefit from double digit appreciation and they aren't being hurt by double digit depreciation now.

The thing to remember is that during the "bubble", people were making real money. Some people took their money and got out leaving others holding the bag.

That's capitalism. Don't feel bad if you make a business decision to walk away from a bad investment. That's capitalism too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
woody7
Always a Dem, but..............
11:47 AM on 05/12/2010
Hmmm.......Banks do this, but when a home owner does it, it is bad. I don't agree with it, but can understand why it is being done. If you are pay on a note that is way more than your house is worth, to me that is like throwing money in a whole especially if you are affected by the foreclosures in your neighborhood that you have no control over and it brings the value of your house down. I would like to see some negotiations to strike some kind of medium where the home owner doesn't walk away and the bank works with them somewhat instead of just foreclosing. I don't want to hear about the reasons, it's the buyers fault, its the banks, blame time is over, time to fix.
photo
hypnotoad72
Real democracy = living wages.
01:10 PM on 05/12/2010
How can one fix a problem without knowing its causes? Assuming all the causes are mentioned, and they certainly aren't or else they would all be mentioned. Not just devaluation of homes, but wages. Not everybody buys a $700k home despite having a $15/hr salary or seeing their wages frozen while the cost of living ramps up.)

Everyone has a part to play and as we're seeing, not all parts are being bailed out. Only the top while the rug goes out from the people on the bottom. In short, nothing is fixed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
woody7
Always a Dem, but..............
02:38 PM on 05/12/2010
That was kind of my point.The banks are saying we have a "social" responsibility, but when you are trying to be responsible and the bottom is dropping from under you through no fault of yours, where are the banks social responsibility? I can't see how they win when they foreclose.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
electriclady281
01:14 AM on 05/13/2010
Apparently you and others of a like mind, including me, are in a minority. If I am correct in my perception, that's a PATHETIC picture of the US public.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GaryA
Business Insider Contributor
11:34 AM on 05/12/2010
I have been advocating walking away from the abuses at the big banks at http://bank-abuse.com and am glad that people are finally getting it about the banks. I would like to see the TBTF banks fail, and like Ellen Brown's idea of setting up state banks like the model state bank that exists in North Dakota. The banks would loan to the community banks. We could put the deposits of the TBTF banks into these banks.