Wealth and Investing Center

Obama pushes multibillion-dollar mortgage pact: report

A ''Price Reduced'' outside a home for sale in northern Virginia, October 27, 2010. REUTERS/Larry Downing

A ''Price Reduced'' outside a home for sale in northern Virginia, October 27, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

NEW YORK | Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:51am EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Obama administration is trying to push a settlement that could force the largest U.S. banks to pay for reductions in loan principal worth billions of dollars following breakdowns in mortgage servicing, The Wall Street Journal said.

Should a settlement be reached, some state attorneys general are also pushing for banks to pay more than $20 billion of civil fines or to fund a similar amount of loan modifications for troubled borrowers, the newspaper said on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Regulators are looking to settle with as many as 14 servicers, including three of the nation's four largest banks: Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.

The administration wants a commitment from loan servicers to reduce loan balances for borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth, and that such costs would not be borne by investors who bought mortgage-backed securities, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.

It would thus force servicers that mishandled foreclosure procedures to bear losses by writing down loans they service on behalf of clients such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other investors, the newspaper said.

A settlement would let banks devise their own modifications or use existing government programs, and require them to reduce second-lien mortgages when primary mortgages are modified, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Terms remain fluid and have not been presented to banks, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Bank of America, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo declined to comment to the newspaper. None could be immediately reached after-hours for comment.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Ramya Venugopal)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
ahouse1 wrote:
As a 20 year mortgage banking professional involved in mortgage due diligence and having read the article in the WSJ all I have to say is by the time they figure this out most of the people who are in harms way will already have lost the battle against the banks. The amount of legal fee’s the banks are spending to make sure their interests are protected in exponentially higher than the defense funds for all the American Home owners at risk. Shame on our banking and political system again, and again, and again!

Feb 24, 2011 8:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
No matter how the pact is weasel-worded, customers of the banks will pay for the proposed principle reduction for underwater borrowers.

Our home is paid for and we have no debt. We only bought what we could afford and we scrimped and saved to make advance principle payments while maintaining savings in an emergency fund. We are not rich with an annual income of less than $50,000.

If the Administration subsidizes the mortgages of the “victims” of the “bad” lenders, then I want to be compensated for my loss of equity and for my “stupidity” for taking responsibility for my own personal finances.

Feb 24, 2011 10:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
BadgerBoyJake wrote:
If all these homes had gone up in value would the government be forcing the homeowners to pay the banks some of that increase?

Feb 24, 2011 10:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.