October Surprise from Chase: No More Foreclosures

JP Morgan Chase announced yesterday that it will take a break from leaving Americans in the cold and hold off on foreclosures for the next ninety days. A JP Morgan executive told the press, "We felt it is our responsibility to provide additional help to homeowners during these challenging times. We will work with families who want to save their homes but are struggling to make their payments." In the interim, the company will attempt to find ways to make payments easier on the $110 billion of problem mortgages. Meanwhile in Washington yesterday, Barney Frank complained that banks thus far are using their portion of the $700 million government bailout for "bonuses, dividends and acquisitions."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Billy Parker in News on November 1, 2008 10:00 AM

Comments [rss]

NannyState

Gawd that Jamie Dimon is an old softy. Whatever happened to pushing the "deadbeats" out into the streets on Christmas Eve? Reagan must be spinning in his grave.

chadd232

And the dreaded free market does its job.

longacre

If someone stops paying their mortgage, the bank simply stop making money. If the bank forecloses on a house, it actually costs the bank a good amount of cash in legal fees and to actually maintain the house, and right now it's not like there would be a line of buyers knocking on Chase's door to buy this house they just repo'd for any decent price.

This is a good business decision with some excellent PR benefits.

As for Barney Frank's complaint, those nine banks that received that money were in pretty decent shape and some didn't even want that money. Why should the feds get to tell them what to do with it?

Spirit of 76

Christmas comes early for some this year.

JacqueMehoff

like I said, everybody got rich off of this scheme.

how many ads for mortgage brokers must I see on TV?

matty

"Well then, why the fuck didn't you include a clause telling banks where they would be allow to use the money... like lending."

I completely agree. If this money is squandered I think people should be outraged (all over again).

Who is auditing this money?

SeasTooFarToReach

Seeing these are banks, who are in the business of making money, not charity, I'd say the latter.

Barney Frank complained that banks thus far are using their portion of the $700 million government bailout for "bonuses, dividends and acquisitions.

Well then, why the fuck didn't you include a clause telling banks where they would be allow to use the money... like lending.

texinyc

Compassionate fellow citizens of a democracy giving a break to the less fortunate?

Or shrewd business people making a move to maintain a steady (albeit smaller) trickle of capital?

I'll admit that I'm a bit stumped on this one.