and post- hamp as well. i know we are considering a longridge situation and that becomes very expensive for us -- a longer situation and that becomes a barracks offensive situation for us -- becomes a very expensive situation for us. anything longer than a three month time frame becomes a very eensive for us. >> we have done about 100,000 such customer cases before. the -- before the hamp modification was changed. the treasury process was very similar to what we were offering before and we will continue to help customers that do not qualify for hamp as well. >> we have always provided for grants to qualified borrowers and we will under the treasury program as well. >> can i ask that all of you provide to the chairman the number of homeowners, beginning with the beginning of this year to #those in forbearance -- to number those in forbearance. i understand this is something that might have been done before you have a customer -- it was the appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. of course those circu

we additionally extended hamp to 150,000 homeowners, and 38,000 have taken hamp. >> 630,000 permanent modifications since 2008. 70,000 of them are hamp. >> we have reported out about 8800. we have about 16,000 currently in trial periods. >> for permanent? >> the 88 is reported out as permanent. >> 88,000? >> 8800. >> we have 500,000 mines. 38 percent of them are inside of hamp. there are probably 45,000 of those in permanent. >> less than 10%? >> to under 57,000 in hamp. >> how many are permanent? >> 47,000. a very small number. we are talking less than 10%. >> the people who qualified for hamp went through this cumbersome process, a hundred different rules and all the stuff they had to go through. i describe the intimidating profits. the small number -- how many of those -- let us as it this way. the people who qualify for hamp -- would any of those not qualify for your own modification program? >> let us put it this way. for the people that fell out of hamp, we were able to save 50% more. >> you were able to help? and it is working? >> it is working. >> i cannot tell you the exact n

this is not just about hamp. the mortgage banking industry has got to recognize that hamp cannot be the only solution to the foreclosure crisis. some of the banks appearing today have begun to save homes from foreclosures with principal reductions, second lein loa modifications, and other help for the unemployed. these sound like a good first steps, but i want to hear more. i want to see broad participation throughout the industry. foreclosure is a losing proposition for everyone involved. the homeowner loses a house. the bank loses a big chunk of its investment. the community loses a family with a stake in the community. what i'm asking the banks to do is to help us find an effective way to stop these foreclosures. i want to thank our witnesses today for appearing and i look forward to your testimony. i now yield five minutes to the committee ranking member. let me just say this before we move on. we are going to get five additional minutes on each side. after york opening statement, 5 minutes on the democratic

and post- hamp as well. i know we are considering a longridge situation and that becomes very expensive for us -- a longer situation and that becomes a barracks offensive situation for us -- becomes a very expensive situation for us. anything longer than a three month time frame becomes a very expensive for us. >> we have done about 100,000 such customer cases before. the -- before the hamp modification was changed. the treasury process was very similar to what we were offering before and we will continue to help customers that do not qualify for hamp as well. >> we have always provided for grants to qualified borrowers and we will under the treasury program as well. >> can i ask that all of you provide to the chairman the number of homeowners, beginning with the beginning of this year to #those in forbearance -- to number those in forbearance. i understand this is something that might have been done before you have a customer -- it was the appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. of course those cir

-phamp -- what's hamp hamp doesy to make sure that a set of foreclosure have the chance to do that. and again, the members are -- the numbers are 1.1 million will try for modifications and 1.1 million will see modifications. >> as superintendent neeman said, we will find out what the consequences are of that. one of the early modification programs acttally got people in more trouble. it raised overall payments and got them in more trouble than they started out with. what do you have to show for it? >> we have 1.2 million americans that have a reduction in their payments, had a chance, therefore, to keep their homes.+ >> and passed up other argentines that they might have had to deal with their foreclosures. -- past of other opportuuities that they might have had to deal with their foreclosures. and the point is that they've lost their homes. what is it to say that a family -- how do we decide when the program is working? >> you look at its results family by family, foreclosure by foreclosure, a change in monthly payments by change in monthly payments. in looking at that, these progr

they were being done outside of the hamp program.nd charged three shows the slowdown of this program as neutral modifications had fallen off precipitously. now it has started dropping. we should ask the treasury department where are the modifications that it was on track to produce? this committee and the people deserve an honest assessment. thanks, and i will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. >> i thank all of you for your testimony. why has there not been more primitive mortgage modifications? why the think there have not been more? we have put an enormous amount of resources to make sure that we open this up to its main trial modifications as possible. it really opened the door to as many people as possible. >> how long should that take? >> it takes us about four months, which is the fastest in the industry. to answer your question, the reason it is not as high as expected is in many cases, they do not match with what was stated at the time of the modification. those are the two principal reasons. >> under the

-phamp -- what's hamp hamp doesy to make sure that a set of foreclosure have the chance to do that. and again, the members are -- the numbers are 1.1 million will try for modiffcations and 1.1 million will see modifications. >> as superintendent neeman said, we will find out what the consequences are of that. one of the early modification programs acttally got people in more trouble. it raised overall payments and got them in more trouble than they started out with. what do you have to show for it? >> we have 1.2 million americans that have a reduction in their payments, had a chance, therefore, to keep their homes.+ >> and passed up other argentines that they might have had to deal with their foreclosures. -- paat of other opportunities that they might have had to deal with their foreclosures. and the ppint is that they've lost their homes. what is it to say that a family -- how do we decide when the program is working? >> you ook at its results family by family, foreclosure by foreclosure, a change in monthly payments by change in monthly payments. in looking at that, these progra

-phamp -- what's hamp hamp doesy to make sure that a set of foreclosure have the chance to do that. and again, the members are -- the numbers are 1.1 million will try for modifications and 1.1 million will see modifications. >> as superintendent neeman said, we will find out what the consequences are of that. one of the early modification programs acttally got people in more trouble. it raised overall payments and got them in more trouble than they started out with. what do you have to show for it? >> we have 1.2 million americans that have a reduction in their payments, had a chance, therefore, to keep their homes.+ >> and passed up other argentines that they might have had to deal with their foreclosures. -- past of other opportunities that they might have had to deal with their foreclosures. and the point is that they've lost their homes. what is it to say that a family -- how do we decide when the program is working? >> you look at its results family by family, foreclosure by foreclosure, a change in monthly payments by change in monthly payments. in looking at that, these progr

-phamp -- what's hamp hamp doesy to make sure that a set of foreclosure have the chance to do that. and again, the members are -- the numbers are 1.1 million will try for modifications and 1.1 million will see modifications. >> as superintendent neeman said, we will find out what the consequences are of that. one of the early modification programs acttally got people in more trouble. it raised overall payments and got them in more trouble than they started out with. what do you have to show for it? >> we have 1.2 million americans that have a reduction in their payments, had a chance, therefore, to keep their homes.+ >> and passed up other argentines that they might have had to deal with their foreclosures. -- past of other opportunities that they might have had to deal with their foreclosures. and the point is that they've lost their homes. what is it to say that a family -- how do we decide when the program is working? >> you look at its results family by family, foreclosure by foreclosure, a change in monthly payments by change in monthly payments. in looking at that, these progr

the goal is for hamp to offer lower modifications but only some of the offers will result in temporary modifications. only some of the modifications will converge to final five-year status. some will eventually fall behind on their payments and face foreclosure." the goal since malta the magnitude of the problem. that is by the congressional oversight panel. it says no authority under this act may be used to anchor -- >> your time has expired. further debate? >> i do not suppose it rises to the level of the louisiana purchase. for us to have received roughly annan hour of not less notice to this conference, to receive an amendment that is a court to this entire legislation and to receive that three minutes after the conference was reconvenes on an amendment that i believe is fundamentally deceptive to the american people is fundamentally unfair. i do not understand how money can be used for two different purposes. i heard the distinguished chairman of the banking committee say that cbo has said this or that. the good people at cbo scores would you put before them. if you do not put bef

>> on the first, we have been working hard to support the treasuries efforts to do hamp renegotiations between borrowers and lenders and we have made clear to the banks they should participate and cooperate in those programs. >> with all due respect it is the services who aren't showing up and it is a voluntary program that is not working. >> we can strongly encourage them to participate but it is up to congress to make it mandatory. we don't have the power to make it mandaty that we are certainly, we think it is good practice and good for the banks to get these things resolved and to have these loans in limbo is not good for the banks either. they need to get them resolved and stabilize as quickly as possible so i think there is a common interest here and we are interested in that point. feds are interested in stabilization which is a related issue when you have a lot of foreclosures in an area you have a breakdown in public order or tax revenues and property values, so that is another issue where we have been very much involved. but again i think the government's primary pool for thi