at the national programs are always useful. >> mr. pinto seemed to imply that hamp is just as place in private-sector modification programs, which seems to contradict your testimony and that of others on the panel who said hamp complement's the proprietary loan modification program which bank of america and others have developed. could you elaborate? >> it gets back to the point of which loans and which customers are eligible for hamp. as i said, of our 1.4 million customers who are delinquent 60 days or more, there are about 478,000 that are eligible for hamp. we lead with hamp. if they fail to meet that requirement, we can offer other alternatives. for the rest of the customers in the portfolio we are doing modifications. the advantage is that hamp provided the floor or standard in terms of the debt to income ratio that we can leverage in other programs for customers who are not explicitly eligible for hamp by its definition. >> if i understand your testimony and that of mr. heid and mr lowman, it provides a framework for you to build upo

i am wondering if any of you would dispute what mr. pinto said when he estimated hamp estimated will ultimately meet only 6% to a% of its original goal. he used the words numbing complexity. do any of you dispute that estimate, that very pessimistic estimate that he has presented here today? or would any of you dispute his description of the requirements as being numbing complexity? >> i am not sure i would use that phrase to describe hamp. i believe that we all stood beside hamp and created it together with the treasury department. we wanted to make sure we had one uniform program. we really focused on scale on that program. i think it is important for us to understand that we all collectively got behind this program and focused on scale. last year that was not the case. more importantly, we got the gses to come when the program. all of our laws and litigators had one program they had to deal with instead of nuanced proprietary programs. i believe mp worked when it needed to. there is a part b to that, which is that this problem is moving f

i am wondering if any of you would dispute what mr. pinto said when he estimated hamp estimated will ultimately meet only 6% to a% of its original goal. he used the words numbing complexity. do any of you dispute that estimate, that very pessimistic estimate that he has presented here today? or would any of you dispute his description of the requirements as being numbing complexity? >> i am not sure i would use that phrase to describe hamp. i believe that we all stood beside hamp and created it together with the treasury department. we wanted to make sure we had one uniform program. we really focused on scale on that program. i think it is important for us to understand that we all collectively got behind this program and focused on scale. last year that was not the case. more importantly, we got the gses to come when the program. all of our laws and litigators had one program they had to deal with instead of nuanced proprietary programs. i believe hamp worked when it needed to. there is a part b to that, which is that this problem is moving

i am wondering if any of you would dispute what mr. pinto said when he estimated that h.a.m.p.ould only meet 6% to 8% of its or original goal. do any of you dispute that estimate that he has presented here today? would any of you to speed his description of any of your requirements as being numbing in complexity? >> i am not sure i would use the phrase to describe h.a.m.p. we all stood behind h.a.m.p. in creating it with the treasury department. we are focused on scale. it is important for us to understand that we all collectively that behind this program and focused on scale. last year, that was not the case. more importantly, we got to the gse's to come behind the program. our loss litigators have one program they have to deal with. this problem is moving forward. i believe we now need to focus on the fault -- defaults. h.a.m.p. needs to evolves. it has served its purpose. i want to applaud my colleagues for having tried as hard as they did. it was an important response to homeowners at the time. >> i just had one other thing. - thee h.a.m.p. - significant benefit of h.a.m.p.