More

Five Major Banks May Be Required To Commit $15 Billion To Reduce Principal Balances

Mortgage Crisis

First Posted: 10/28/11 07:01 PM ET Updated: 10/28/11 07:01 PM ET

(Aruna Viswanatha and Rick Rothacker) - A controversial weapon could be deployed soon in the U.S. fight against the housing crisis as states and top banks near a deal in their dispute over mortgage abuses -- cutting the mortgage debt owed by homeowners.

Five major banks could be required to commit roughly $15 billion to reduce principal balances for struggling homeowners and modify loans in other ways under a proposed deal to settle allegations linked to the "robo-signing" scandal.

That amount would be part of broader sanctions that could total $25 billion, small change for the giants of Wall Street but potentially sowing the seed for a new approach to tackling the housing crisis.

Settlement talks continue with the banks, state attorneys general and some federal agencies over foreclosure shortcuts and other abuses. A deal could be struck within a month, according to people familiar with the matter.

Much of the exact language has yet to be hashed out but it could provide for the first broad use of principal writedowns, something economists and housing advocates say is a drastic but needed step to help set right the housing market.

Investors and the government-controlled mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which own around half of all U.S. mortgages -- have long resisted the idea.

There are concerns it could encourage some borrowers to stop paying in order to qualify for a reduction in their overall mortgage.

Fannie and Freddie's regulator has been wary of allowing principal reductions, doing so would lower the value of the assets held by the taxpayer-supported firms.

More broadly, public anger over the possibility of bailouts for homeowners who got out of their depth in debt is seen as one of the origins of the conservative Tea Party movement.

Given the political sensitivity, the Obama administration has so far trodden carefully to help homeowners. It wants to let more borrowers refinance to lower interest rates and stretch out the terms of loans to reduce monthly payments.

Some officials at the Federal Reserve say the central bank should buy more mortgage debt to bring down borrowing rates.

But those efforts do little to address the underlying problem, that many borrowers owe more than their homes are worth.

Under a potential settlement, the five banks -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial -- would have to meet dollar targets to reduce principal for underwater borrowers.

"I think it will be a step in the right direction," said Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. "The AGs hope this could work as a pilot program, and show how principal reduction could work."

To be sure, the reductions will have limited impact. The deal is unlikely to touch mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie. And according to a back-of-the-envelope calculation, $15 billion in reduction at $50,000 per borrower could reach around 300,000 borrowers, a fraction of the 11 million underwater homeowners.

But a deal may prompt banks to expand the limited principal reduction programs that they have so far directed toward only the riskiest loans in their portfolios.

The settlement could lay the groundwork for a broader program, if Fannie and Freddie are swayed to test it out themselves as an alternative to the costly process of foreclosing on struggling borrowers.

"Fifteen billion (dollars) is a drop in the bucket, but here might well be the very opportunity to conduct an experiment," said Ken H. Johnson, a professor at Florida International University's business school.

PRIOR EFFORTS

One model could be the 2008 settlement between Countrywide, the mortgage lender bought by Bank of America in that year, and state attorneys general. It provided a framework for loan modifications that became the basis for the administration's Home Affordable Modification Program which has so far had only a modest impact.

That deal set up the now widely used "waterfall" approach to trying to lower a borrower's monthly payment through a series of steps that include reducing the interest rate, extending the term of the loan and deferring some principal.

The states are hopeful a settlement on foreclosure abuses could have a similar ripple effect.

Not all states are satisfied with Bank of America's compliance with the 2008 settlement, presaging some concerns that could arise in any new settlement. Nevada and Arizona sued the bank saying it did not honor its obligations and engaged in "deceptive" practices in dealing with distressed borrowers.

Shum Preston, a spokesman for the California attorney general, also said that his office continues to receive complaints from Countrywide borrowers.

But Massachusetts, which last year extracted an additional commitment from Bank of America to reduce around $3 billion in principal on some of its riskiest loans across the country, said the bank had been complying with the settlement.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office in the state, Brad Puffer, said around 2,600 residents have received loan modifications under the settlement, saving some $125 million in mortgage payments, including both principal reductions and other types of modifications.

Bank of America said it had extended 49,000 offers to reduce principal for underwater borrowers nationwide, forgiving almost $3 billion in principal payments, since the agreement.

That settlement, and a similar one by Wells Fargo, were directed at the riskiest loans, leaving largely untouched more traditional mortgages that still deep underwater due to cratering home prices.

Wells says it has provided $4 billion in principal reduction as part of 96,000 modifications completed since the Wachovia acquisition. In addition, since 2010, Wells has participated in a HAMP principal reduction program.

"We're never been here before so we can't look to past experience," said Johnson, the business school professor, "with the added complexity of what foreclosures do to market pricing, some form of principal reduction may be the answer."

(Reporting by Aruna Viswanatha in Washington D.C. and Rick Rothacker in Charlotte, North Carolina; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
(Aruna Viswanatha and Rick Rothacker) - A controversial weapon could be deployed soon in the U.S. fight against the housing crisis as states and top banks near a deal in their dispute over mortgag...
(Aruna Viswanatha and Rick Rothacker) - A controversial weapon could be deployed soon in the U.S. fight against the housing crisis as states and top banks near a deal in their dispute over mortgag...
Filed by Harry Bradford  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 369
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
99% -Don't do what they tell you !
05:54 AM on 11/02/2011
As long as I live I will NEVER give any money to any of the big banks EVER again !!!

OWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
99% -Don't do what they tell you !
05:53 AM on 11/02/2011
I want to sue JPM Chase !

I hate them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anitaroosevelt
want some Ayn Rand with those fries?
03:26 PM on 11/01/2011
So, is Principal Reduction only for buyers in default?

What about the people who did everything right and are depleting their savings to stay current on their mortgages?

Aren't these the same people who lost a lot of their retirement accounts when Wall Street crashed and then to add insult to injury had to "bail out" the crooks that cost them so much of their savings?

Not to mention millions of Americans who are behind because they lost their jobs because of Wall Street.

What about all of us?
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
11:16 PM on 10/31/2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/the-worst-deal-they-could_b_1067219.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics

This banking deal that I have been writing about for the last week was the subject of a great piece by Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times, and as more details emerge, it looks even worse than a lot of us who have been following this issue thought it would be. We already knew that the $25 billion fund being created would only cover 5 percent of the underwater mortgage foreclosure problem, but Morgenson reports that MOST OF THE $25 BILLION ISN'T FROM THE BANKS THEMSEVLES, BUT FROM TAXPAYERS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/business/a-foreclosure-settlement-that-wouldnt-sting.html?_r=1&ref=gretchenmorgenson
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
99% -Don't do what they tell you !
02:06 AM on 11/01/2011
When will peopole understand that this system is rigged against them at all times with everything they are trying to achieve?


Many more need to wake up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
99% -Don't do what they tell you !
02:07 AM on 11/01/2011
How about a run on the banks?
photo
KOSMOCITIZEN
time is truth
08:29 PM on 10/31/2011
the conservatives always say that capitalism is the best system for the markets..
they throw at you the supply and demand anecdote and nothing else
in fact when it comes to banking industry the capitalist standard of doing business,'' supply and demand '' is out of the window ,
case in point
couple weeks ago my wife bought clothes from a department store, the next day she noticed in the newspaper ad the items she bought were selling for less at the same company
when she told me , she went back to the store and got some refunds back on the items she bought the previous day, i couldn't believe it..
after some thought i realized that's capitalism on its true form
the companies over produced or overstocked items that have no great demand and they have to get rit of them before the new season starts
now lets talk about banks
the builders over built and the banks over produce loans like crazy and the demand was never there in the first place
isn't the right capitalistic way to lower the price or give some refunds back for unwanted overproduced products that nobody can afford to buy in the first place
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
11:04 PM on 10/31/2011
Read your mortage documents.
If they have a refund policy (like many stores do) then you should be able to get a refund.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anitaroosevelt
want some Ayn Rand with those fries?
03:20 PM on 11/01/2011
Oh yeah, cause you know those docs have absolutely no clauses that allow for refunds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anitaroosevelt
want some Ayn Rand with those fries?
04:22 PM on 11/01/2011
A good post. But one caveat. The retailer was not "legally" required to refund her money.

It did so as a good business practice because it would probably have lost customers if it did not pursue such a return /refund policy. Your wife has the choice to shop elsewhere.

The situation with the banks and Wall Street is already so messed up by the TARP bailouts..this isn't capitalism, it's corporate socialism.
ReaItors Are Liars
NAR is corrupt
06:38 PM on 10/31/2011
Folks,

Banks and ReaItors WANT you to continue to stay in your house so they can;

-Extend the length of your mortage term putting you much DEEPER in debt

-Keep housing prices grossly inflated.

Banks and reaItors are colluding to bleed you all dry. WALK away from the house and buy a duplicate house for 50% less.

If you stay and continue to pay grossly inflated mortgage installmen­­­ts on a rapidly depreciati­­­ng house, you will never recover financiall­­­y.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anitaroosevelt
want some Ayn Rand with those fries?
04:11 PM on 11/01/2011
In some states, if you walk away the bank can come after you for the losses they take and their costs.

So a lot of decent, hardworking taxpayers like me end up basically "trapped by a mortgage in a house I can't sell for what I owe and....................

If I sell "short" and the bank has to agree to accept less or I have to pay the difference.....I end up having to claim the amount the bank accepted that was less than owed and pay tax on it!

How is this fair?

I'm sick of this.
ReaItors Are Liars
NAR is corrupt
05:35 PM on 11/01/2011
And in most states, they won't seek the difference.

Furthermore, you can short sell without owing any tax. Do not wait because it expires in 2013.
Konnie
PO'd PROGRESSIVE
04:11 PM on 10/31/2011
silly me. i moved my money to a credit union, and then got a mortgage from a local savings and loan bank that doesn't sell it's mortgages..............no bailout for me...........
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
04:24 PM on 10/31/2011
If a local bank is writing 30 year fixed loans and not selling them to Fannie or Freddie, the regulators will soon close it. A 30 year fixed loan is too much risk for any bank to take. They might retain the servicing of the loan - you'll still send your payment to them - but they don't own the loans.

There is a post further down the line where a woman is angry - her credit union won't reduce the principal on her mortgage. :)

If you took out the loan, pay it back like you promised to do.
Konnie
PO'd PROGRESSIVE
04:57 PM on 10/31/2011
uh no. this is a well established regional savings and loan. they have been offering mortgages for over 70 years. they are well funded and established. they are pretty old fashioned with income, equity and downpayment rules tho. our area was not included in the housing bubble. appraisors and real estate agents and banks pretty much kept our area stable, so there are few foreclosures. our area wasn't overbuilt and the new sub-division were pre-sold before the houses went up. i guess being stodgy works.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anitaroosevelt
want some Ayn Rand with those fries?
03:45 PM on 11/01/2011
And if the banks broke the law......and Congress and the government for the past 30 years de-regulated banks and Wall Street so that a bunch of trust fund babies could gamble with our savings and the value of our homes......What??????

What's fair , here?

Let's see, we've bailed out the crooks who sank our home values. We've bailed out the crooks who decimated our personal retirement savings.

Again, what's fair?

They get the bonuses, they get bailed out by our tax dollars and we get .............business as usual?

That's not fair Ed Baker. In fact, refusing to help all homeowners is downright wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:51 PM on 10/31/2011
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. We'll be paying for this decision.
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
04:25 PM on 10/31/2011
You have that right, if the value of mortgage securities decrease because of this short sighted idea, everyone who takes out a loan will pay for it in higher interest rates. If Fannie and Freddie loans are affected, the US taxpayer will pay for it.
ReaItors Are Liars
NAR is corrupt
06:47 PM on 10/31/2011
Rates are artificially low and don't reflect the real risk of lending.
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
03:12 PM on 10/31/2011
Just let the foreclosures happen and be done with it. What happened with all the loan modifications - most of the people defaulted AGAIN.

Foreclosure isn't the end of the world and the borrower already agreed to it when he signed his loan documents.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anitaroosevelt
want some Ayn Rand with those fries?
04:15 PM on 11/01/2011
There would be too many foreclosures.

What would that do to the economy?
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
05:25 PM on 11/01/2011
It would be great for the economy. People who are prudent with their money would buy the properties, resell them, or rent them out.

What we're doing now just prolongs the misery, and delays the eventuality.

But why should I even bother to reply here? Please outline the basis for your economic prognostication. Please show your math. Please post your financial credentials as well. I'm interested in your analysis.

Or maybe you're just making it up as you go along?
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
03:01 PM on 10/31/2011
The banks don't own the loans - Fannie and Freddie own them - so YOU the US taxpayer will be paying for this.

The prudent will pay for the imprudent - the irresponsible will get to keep the house they couldn't afford in the first place......

So - those of you who didn't act recklessly, didn't put in that swimming pool or additional bathroom, those who didn't remodel the kitchen..... will pay for those who did.
photo
biglog
I see your Schwartz is as big as mine.
03:54 PM on 10/31/2011
Ed, I re-read the story carefully to see if I missed something, but I still gather that the banks are being required to pay down the principal balances out of pocket (although it's far from explicit). But the story also states that the deal is "unlikely to touch mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie." How are we arriving at different conclusions?
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
04:01 PM on 10/31/2011
Why should anyone be relieved of debts they agreed to pay in the first place? If they can't pay - there are provisions in the contract they signed, it's called foreclosure, and it's not the end of the world.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:11 PM on 10/30/2011
Why pay back banks that have no legal proof they own the note? Or that have already received insurances, government help or Fed Reserve help. These people have destroyed legal title and as far as I can tell, it is the homeowner who actually has the title with no record or legal proof of indebtedness. So, why are we trying to get them to negotiate? Let's just tell them to write it off.
06:49 PM on 10/30/2011
I agree.

STOP paying.
01:54 PM on 10/31/2011
Spoken like a true deadbeat. You should be proud of yourself.
ReaItors Are Liars
NAR is corrupt
06:48 PM on 10/31/2011
Open up and read a mortgage contract and you'll learn something.
10:25 PM on 11/01/2011
Being a "deadbeat" beats being a a stupid victim twice in the mortgage fraud scandal that this counrty is going through.
03:59 PM on 10/30/2011
I read this morning that Nevada is trying to pass a law saying the lenders have to reduce the amounts of loans to the 'real' appraisal values on homes.

Y-E-S!!!!! WTG, Nevada!
photo
BeautifulOnDaOutside
I ♥ Huffington Post
11:31 AM on 10/31/2011
Good way to make sure no one every lends money in Nevada again.
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
11:20 PM on 10/31/2011
Exactly.
Might be the best thing to ever happen to Nevada though
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
03:03 PM on 10/31/2011
Great way to increase the cost of money in Nevada - or to end lending in that state.

Most likely populist jaw-boning with no intent to follow through.

See if it happens.
02:12 PM on 10/30/2011
We bailed them out with our money. It is time they reciprocate the sentiments
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
03:14 PM on 10/31/2011
The banks aren't going to take the loss - Fannie and Freddie will - ie, the US taxpayer.

The prudent will pay for the imprudent.

Bring on the foreclosures - let them happen. It's not the end of the world. The borrower already agreed to foreclosure when he signed his loan documents.
03:39 PM on 10/31/2011
Ed, in fantasy land, the 'banks' will pay, or the 'government' will pay.
On planet earth in real life, PEOPLE pay.
It amazes me how few understand this concept.
Corporations don't pay and governments don't pay for ANYTHING.
PEOPLE pay.
12:02 AM on 11/02/2011
OWS is talking massive class action and civil suits as punitive actions against the biggest banks. OWS has raised nearly half a million dollars in less than month of existence and has secured very interested legal representation offers.

The banks and corporations may not like the idea of having to "take the loss" but the world as we know it has ended and nobody cares anymore if irresponsible corporate bankers, and the real estate workers ever get a decent commission for sales ever again. You all made out like bandits by preying on "imprudence" as you say. "Imprudence" isin't a deadly sin but "greed" and "gluttony" is.
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
11:22 PM on 10/31/2011
We never should have bailed them out in the first place.

The answer is not to screw the taxpayers another time.
photo
KarmaPatrol
Fair and balanced and sugar-free
12:19 PM on 10/30/2011
That's why mortgage-backed securities are riskier than Treasuries, folks. If the "investors" can't hang with more risk in return for a higher % interest or dividends, then stick with money funds, CDs, saving bond/Treasuries (held to maturity), or plain old savings account. Freddie and Fannie (as well as Ginnae) were never fully backed by the US govt. If they were completely private it would be worse.
10:06 AM on 10/30/2011
Principal Reduction has to happen, foreclosures have to be halted, stability in housing has to be established ..its not just going to happen..."We Can't Wait" ....the new "Special Interest Group" is now known as Main Street America.
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
03:05 PM on 10/31/2011
Fact - most people ARE making their mortgage payments on time, as they agreed. WHY? Because they were prudent and bought something they could afford, didn't jack all the cash out of their houses to buy a Hummer or other toys, and EVEN saved for a rainy day.
photo
biglog
I see your Schwartz is as big as mine.
03:58 PM on 10/31/2011
No it doesn't. The government can't artificially stabilize and stimulate the housing market forever. In order to truly recover it will have to first hit the bottom and then start working its way back up. The longer it is delayed, the worse the situation will eventually become in the long run.
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
04:29 PM on 10/31/2011
Yes, the longer the wait, the more damage caused to the economy and the real estate market.

We agree.

Bring on the foreclosures - the sooner the better.