NOTE 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees

Background

The Corporation securitizes first-lien residential mortgage loans, generally in the form of MBS guaranteed by the GSEs or by GNMA in the case of FHA-insured, VA-guaranteed and Rural Housing Service-guaranteed mortgage loans. In addition, in prior years, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries sold pools of first-lien residential mortgage loans and home equity loans as private-label securitizations (in certain of these securitizations, monolines or financial guarantee providers insured all or some of the securities) or in the form of whole loans. In connection with these transactions, the Corporation or certain subsidiaries or legacy companies make or have made various representations and warranties. These representations and warranties, as set forth in the agreements, related to, among other things, the ownership of the loan, the validity of the lien securing the loan, the absence of delinquent taxes or liens against the property securing the loan, the process used to select the loan for inclusion in a transaction, the loan’s compliance with any applicable loan criteria, including underwriting standards, and the loan’s compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws. Breaches of these representations and warranties may result in the requirement to repurchase mortgage loans or to otherwise make whole or provide other remedies to the GSEs, HUD with respect to FHA-insured loans, VA, whole-loan investors, securitization trusts, monoline insurers or other financial guarantors (collectively, repurchases). In all such cases, the Corporation would be exposed to any credit loss on the repurchased mortgage loans after accounting for any mortgage insurance (MI) or mortgage guaranty payments that it may receive.

Subject to the requirements and limitations of the applicable sales and securitization agreements, these representations and warranties can be enforced by the GSEs, HUD, VA, the whole-loan investor, the securitization trustee or others as governed by the applicable agreement or, in certain first-lien and home equity securitizations where monoline insurers or other financial guarantee providers have insured all or some of the securities issued, by the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor. In the case of loans sold to parties other than the GSEs or GNMA, the contractual liability to repurchase typically arises only if there is a breach of the representations and warranties that materially and adversely affects the interest of the investor, or investors, in the loan, or of the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor (as applicable). Contracts with the GSEs do not contain equivalent language, while GNMA generally limits repurchases to loans that are not insured or guaranteed as required. The Corporation believes that the longer a loan performs prior to default, the less likely it is that an alleged underwriting breach of representations and warranties had a material impact on the loan’s performance. Historically, most demands for repurchase have occurred within the first several years after origination, generally after a loan has defaulted. However, the time horizon in which repurchase claims are typically brought has lengthened primarily due to a significant increase in GSE claims related to loans that had defaulted more than 18 months prior to the claim and to loans where the borrower made at least 25 payments.

The Corporation’s credit loss would be reduced by any recourse it may have to organizations (e.g., correspondents) that, in turn, had sold such loans to the Corporation based upon its agreements with these organizations. When a loan is originated by a correspondent or other third party, the Corporation typically has the right to seek a recovery of related repurchase losses from that originator. Many of the correspondent originators of loans in 2004 through 2008 are no longer in business, or are in a weakened condition, and the Corporation’s ability to recover on valid claims is therefore impacted, or eliminated accordingly. In the event a loan is originated and underwritten by a correspondent who obtains FHA insurance, even if they are no longer in business, any breach of FHA guidelines is the direct obligation of the correspondent, not the Corporation. Generally the volume of unresolved repurchase claims from the FHA and VA for loans in GNMA-guaranteed securities is not significant because the requests are limited in number and are typically resolved quickly. At June 30, 2012, approximately 27 percent of the outstanding repurchase claims relate to loans purchased from correspondents or other parties compared to approximately 28 percent at December 31, 2011. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, the Corporation experienced an increase in recoveries from correspondents and other parties; however, the actual recovery rate may vary from period to period based upon the underlying mix of correspondents and other parties.

The Corporation currently structures its operations to limit the risk of repurchase and accompanying credit exposure by seeking to ensure consistent production of mortgages in accordance with its underwriting procedures and by servicing those mortgages consistent with its contractual obligations.

The methodology used to estimate the liability for representations and warranties is a function of the representations and warranties given and considers a variety of factors, which include, depending on the counterparty, actual defaults, estimated future defaults, historical loss experience, estimated home prices, other economic conditions, estimated probability that a repurchase claim will be received, including consideration of whether presentation thresholds will be met, number of payments made by the borrower prior to default and estimated probability that a loan will be required to be repurchased as well as other relevant facts and circumstances, such as bulk settlements and identity of the counterparty or type of counterparty, as the Corporation believes appropriate. In the case of private-label securitizations, the Corporation's estimate considers, among other things, repurchase experience based on the settlement (BNY Mellon Settlement) with the Bank of New York Mellon as trustee (Trustee), adjusted to reflect differences between the 525 legacy Countrywide first-lien and five second-lien non-GSE residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts (the Covered Trusts) and the remainder of the population of private-label securitizations, and assumes that the conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement will be met. The estimate of the liability for representations and warranties is based upon currently available information, significant judgment, and a number of factors, including those set forth above, that are subject to change. Changes to any one of these factors could significantly impact the estimate of the liability and could have a material adverse impact on the Corporation's results of operations for any particular period. Given that these factors vary by counterparty, the Corporation analyzes representations and warranties obligations based on the specific counterparty, or type of counterparty, with whom the sale was made. For additional information, see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Settlement Actions

The Corporation has vigorously contested any request for repurchase when it has concluded that a valid basis for repurchase does not exist and will continue to do so in the future. However, in an effort to resolve these legacy mortgage-related issues, the Corporation has reached bulk settlements, or agreements for bulk settlements, including settlement amounts which have been material, with counterparties in lieu of a loan-by-loan review process. The Corporation may reach other settlements in the future if opportunities arise on terms it believes to be advantageous to the Corporation. However, there can be no assurance that the Corporation will reach future settlements or, if it does, that the terms of past settlements, such as Syncora as discussed in Recent Syncora Settlement below, can be relied upon to predict the terms of future settlements. For a summary of the larger bulk settlement actions beginning in the fourth quarter of 2010, including the BNY Mellon Settlement, the settlement with Assured Guaranty Ltd. and subsidiaries (the Assured Guaranty Settlement) and the December 31, 2010 agreements with the GSEs to resolve repurchase claims (the GSE Agreements), see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee

With regard to the BNY Mellon Settlement, an investor opposed to the settlement removed the proceeding to federal district court, and the federal district court denied the Trustee's motion to remand the proceeding to state court. On February 27, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district court denial of the Trustee's motion to remand the proceeding to state court and ordered that the proceeding be remanded to state court. On April 24, 2012, a hearing was held on threshold issues, at which the court denied the objectors' motion to convert the proceeding to a plenary proceeding. Several status hearings on discovery and other case administration matters have taken place. The Corporation is not a party to the proceeding.

Recent Syncora Settlement

On July 17, 2012, the Corporation, including certain of its affiliates, entered into an agreement with Syncora Guarantee, Inc. and Syncora Holdings Ltd. (Syncora), to resolve all of the monoline insurer's outstanding and potential claims related to alleged representations and warranties breaches involving eight first- and six second-lien RMBS trusts where Syncora provided financial guarantee insurance. The agreement, among other things, also resolves historical loan servicing issues and other potential liabilities to Syncora with respect to these trusts. The agreement covers the five second-lien RMBS trusts that were the subject of litigation and nine other first- and second-lien RMBS trusts, which had an original principal balance of first-lien mortgages of approximately $9.6 billion and second-lien mortgages of approximately $7.7 billion. As of June 30, 2012, $3.0 billion of loans in these first-lien trusts and $1.4 billion of loans in these second-lien trusts have defaulted or are 180 days or more past due (severely delinquent). The agreement provided for a cash payment of $375 million to Syncora. In addition, the parties entered into securities transfers and purchase transactions in connection with the settlement in order to terminate certain other relationships among the parties. The total cost to the Corporation was approximately $400 million and was fully accrued for by the Corporation at June 30, 2012.

Unresolved Repurchase Claims

Unresolved representations and warranties repurchase claims represent the notional amount of repurchase claims made by counterparties, typically the outstanding principal balance or the unpaid principal balance at the time of default. In the case of first-lien mortgages, the claim amount is often significantly greater than the expected loss amount due to the benefit of collateral and, in some cases, mortgage insurance or mortgage guarantee payments. Claims received from a counterparty remain as outstanding until the underlying loan is repurchased, the claim is rescinded by the counterparty, or the claim is otherwise resolved. When a claim is denied and the Corporation does not receive a response from the counterparty, the claim remains in the unresolved claims balance until resolution.

The table below presents unresolved repurchase claims at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The unresolved claims include only claims where the Corporation believes that the counterparty has a basis to submit claims. For additional information, see Whole Loan Sales and Private-label Securitizations Experience in this Note and Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies. These repurchase claims do not include any repurchase claims related to the BNY Mellon Settlement regarding the Covered Trusts.



Unresolved Repurchase Claims by Counterparty and Product Type
(Dollars in millions)	June 30 2012		December 31 2011
By counterparty ^{(1, 2)}
GSEs	$	10,974	$	6,258
Monolines	3,128		3,082
Whole-loan investors, private-label securitization trustees and other	8,603		3,267
Total unresolved repurchase claims by counterparty	$	22,705	$	12,607
By product type ^{(1, 2)}
Prime loans	$	6,729	$	3,925
Alt-A	4,648		2,286
Home equity	2,954		2,872
Pay option	4,390		1,993
Subprime	2,526		891
Other	1,458		640
Total unresolved repurchase claims by product type	$	22,705	$	12,607


⁽¹⁾	Excludes certain MI rescission notices. However, at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, included $2.0 billion and $1.2 billion of repurchase requests received from the GSEs that have resulted solely from MI rescission notices. For additional information, see Mortgage Insurance Rescission Notices in this Note.


⁽²⁾	At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, unresolved repurchase claims did not include repurchase demands of $3.1 billion and $1.7 billion where the Corporation believes the claimants have not satisfied the contractual thresholds as noted on page 195.

During the three months ended June 30, 2012, the Corporation received $8.2 billion in new repurchase claims, including $4.4 billion submitted by the GSEs for both legacy Countrywide originations not covered by the GSE Agreements and legacy Bank of America originations, $3.7 billion submitted by private-label securitization trustees and $119 million submitted by whole-loan investors. During the three months ended June 30, 2012, $1.6 billion in claims were resolved, primarily with the GSEs. Of the claims resolved, $876 million were resolved through rescissions and $704 million were resolved through mortgage repurchases and make-whole payments.

During the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Corporation received $12.9 billion in new repurchase claims, including $7.4 billion submitted by the GSEs for both legacy Countrywide originations not covered by the GSE Agreements and legacy Bank of America originations, $5.3 billion submitted by private-label securitization trustees and $226 million submitted by whole-loan investors. During the six months ended June 30, 2012, $2.8 billion in claims were resolved, primarily with the GSEs. Of the claims resolved, $1.6 billion were resolved through rescissions and $1.2 billion were resolved through mortgage repurchases and make-whole payments. In both periods new claims from monolines remained low, which the Corporation believes was due in part to the monolines' continued focus on litigation.

The Corporation expects unresolved repurchase claims to continue to increase due to, among other things, its differences with FNMA regarding its interpretation of the governing contracts, ongoing litigation with monoline insurers, and a continuing submission of claims by private-label securitization trustees in combination with the lack of an established process to resolve disputes with private-label securitization trustees.

The notional amount of unresolved GSE repurchase claims totaled $11.0 billion at June 30, 2012. The Corporation continued to experience elevated levels of new claims from FNMA, including claims related to loans on which borrowers have made a significant number of payments (e.g., at least 25 payments) and, to a lesser extent, loans which defaulted more than 18 months prior to the repurchase request. Unresolved claims from FNMA totaled $10.1 billion at June 30, 2012, including $7.3 billion of claims related to loans on which the borrower has made at least 25 payments. During the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Corporation received $6.3 billion of claims from FNMA, including $5.5 billion of claims related to loans originated between 2005 and 2007. This amount includes $4.4 billion of loans on which the borrower had made at least 25 payments, including $2.1 billion of loans on which the borrower had made at least 37 payments. Historically, for those claims that have been approved for repurchase from the GSEs, the Corporation's loss severity rate on loans originated between 2004 and 2008 has averaged approximately 55 percent of the claim amount, which may or may not be predictive of future loss severity rates. The Corporation continues to believe that its interpretation of the governing contracts is consistent with past practices between the parties and its contractual obligations. For further discussion of the Corporation's experience with the GSEs, see Government-sponsored Enterprises Experience in this Note.

The notional amount of unresolved monoline repurchase claims totaled $3.1 billion at June 30, 2012. The Corporation has had limited repurchase claims experience with monoline insurers due to ongoing litigation and has not received a significant amount of new repurchase claims from the monolines in recent periods. The Corporation has reviewed and declined to repurchase substantially all of the unresolved claims at June 30, 2012 based on an assessment of whether a breach exists that materially and adversely affected the insurer's interest in the mortgage loan. Further, in the Corporation's experience, the monolines have been generally unwilling to withdraw repurchase claims, regardless of whether and what evidence was offered to refute a claim. Substantially all of the unresolved monoline claims pertain to second-lien loans and, except those that have been resolved in the Syncora Settlement, are currently the subject of litigation. In addition, $674 million of monoline claims outstanding at June 30, 2012 were resolved through the Syncora Settlement on July 17, 2012. For further discussion of the Corporation's practices regarding litigation accruals and range of possible loss for litigation and regulatory matters, which includes the status of its monoline litigation, see Estimated Range of Possible Loss in this Note.

The notional amount of unresolved claims from private-label securitization trustees, whole-loan investors and others increased to $8.6 billion at June 30, 2012 compared to $3.3 billion at December 31, 2011. The increase is primarily due to increases in the submission of claims by private-label securitization trustees. The Corporation anticipated an increase in aggregate non-GSE claims at the time of the BNY Mellon Settlement a year ago, and such increase in aggregate non-GSE claims was taken into consideration in developing the increase in the Corporation's reserves at that time. The Corporation expects unresolved repurchase claims from private-label securitization trustees to increase as claims continue to be submitted by private-label securitization trustees and there is not an established process for the ultimate resolution of claims on which there is a disagreement. For further discussion of the Corporation's experience with whole loans and private-label securitizations, see Whole Loan Sales and Private-label Securitizations Experience in this Note.

In addition to the claims above, the Corporation has received repurchase demands from private-label securitization investors and a master servicer where it believes the claimants have not satisfied the contractual thresholds to direct the securitization trustee to take action and/or that these demands are otherwise procedurally or substantively invalid. The total amounts of such demands outstanding as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 were $3.1 billion and $1.7 billion. The Corporation does not believe that the $3.1 billion in additional demands received are valid repurchase claims, and therefore it is not possible to predict the resolution with respect to such demands. Of the demands outstanding at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, $1.7 billion relate to loans underlying securitizations included in the BNY Mellon Settlement. A claimant, Walnut Place (11 entities with the common name Walnut Place, including Walnut Place LLC, and Walnut Place II LLC through Walnut Place XI LLC), had filed two lawsuits against the Corporation relating to $1.4 billion of these demands; following determination by the courts that the governing agreements bar repurchase claims by certificateholders and the consequent dismissal of Walnut Place's first lawsuit, the parties stipulated in July 2012 to the dismissal of Walnut Place's second lawsuit. For more information on the litigation with Walnut Place, see Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. If the BNY Mellon Settlement is approved by the court, the remaining repurchase demands related to loans underlying securitizations included in the BNY Mellon Settlement will be resolved by the settlement.

Mortgage Insurance Rescission Notices

In addition to repurchase claims, the Corporation receives notices from mortgage insurance companies of claim denials, cancellations or coverage rescission (collectively, MI rescission notices) and the amount of such notices has remained elevated. When there is disagreement with the mortgage insurer as to the resolution of a MI rescission notice, meaningful dialogue and negotiation between the parties are generally necessary to reach a conclusion on an individual notice. The level of engagement of the mortgage insurance companies varies and ongoing litigation involving some of the mortgage insurance companies over individual and bulk rescissions or claims for rescission limits the ability of the Corporation to engage in constructive dialogue leading to resolution. For loans sold to GSEs or private-label securitization trusts (including those wrapped by the monoline bond insurers), a MI rescission may give rise to a claim for breach of the applicable representations and warranties, depending on the governing sales contracts. In those cases where the governing contract contains MI-related representations and warranties, which upon rescission requires the Corporation to repurchase the affected loan or indemnify the investor for the related loss, the Corporation realizes the loss without the benefit of MI. If the Corporation is required to repurchase a loan or indemnify the investor as a result of a different breach of representations and warranties and there has been a MI rescission, or if the Corporation holds the loan for investment, it realizes the loss without the benefit of MI. In addition, mortgage insurance companies have in some cases asserted the ability to curtail MI payments as a result of alleged foreclosure delays, which in these cases would reduce the MI proceeds available to reduce the loss on the loan. While a legitimate MI rescission may constitute a valid basis for repurchase or other remedies under the GSE agreements and a small number of private-label MBS securitizations, and a MI rescission notice may result in a repurchase request, the Corporation believes MI rescission notices do not, in and of themselves, give rise to valid repurchase requests. FNMA's stated policy, however, is to view a MI rescission notice as a breach of the lender's representations and warranties, permitting FNMA to require the lender to repurchase the mortgage loan or promptly remit a make-whole payment covering FNMA's loss even if the lender is contesting the MI rescission notice. The Corporation has informed FNMA that it does not agree with this policy.

The Corporation’s pipeline of unresolved repurchase claims from the GSEs resulting solely from MI rescission notices has increased to $2.0 billion at June 30, 2012 from $1.2 billion at December 31, 2011. If it is required to abide by the terms of FNMA's stated policy regarding MI rescission notices, the amount of loans the Corporation is required to repurchase could increase and if they do, the Corporation’s representations and warranties liability will increase. For additional information on the FNMA policy, see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

At June 30, 2012, the Corporation had approximately 106,000 open MI rescission notices compared to 90,000 at December 31, 2011. Through June 30, 2012, 28 percent of the MI rescission notices received have been resolved. Of those resolved, 21 percent were resolved through the Corporation's acceptance of the MI rescission, 51 percent were resolved through reinstatement of coverage or payment of the claim by the mortgage insurance company, and 28 percent were resolved on an aggregate basis through settlement, policy commutation or similar arrangement. As of June 30, 2012, 72 percent of the MI rescission notices the Corporation has received have not yet been resolved. Of those not yet resolved, 44 percent are implicated by ongoing litigation where no loan-level review is currently contemplated nor required to preserve the Corporation's legal rights. In this litigation, the litigating mortgage insurance companies are also seeking bulk rescission of certain policies, separate and apart from loan-by-loan denials or rescissions. The Corporation is in the process of reviewing 37 percent of the remaining open MI rescission notices, and it has reviewed and is contesting the MI rescission with respect to 63 percent of these remaining open MI rescission notices. Of the remaining open MI rescission notices, 23 percent are also the subject of ongoing litigation although, at present, these MI rescissions are being processed in a manner generally consistent with those not affected by litigation.

Cash Settlements

As presented in the table below, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, the Corporation paid $591 million and $1.0 billion to resolve $723 million and $1.3 billion of repurchase claims through repurchase or reimbursement to the investor or securitization trust for losses they incurred, resulting in a loss on the related loans at the time of repurchase or reimbursement of $145 million and $409 million. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the Corporation paid $1.6 billion and $2.1 billion to resolve $1.9 billion and $2.6 billion of repurchase claims through repurchase or reimbursement to the investor or securitization trust for losses they incurred, resulting in a loss on the related loans at the time of repurchase or reimbursement of $1.0 billion and $1.4 billion. Cash paid for loan repurchases includes the unpaid principal balance of the loan plus past due interest. The amount of loss for loan repurchases is reduced by the fair value of the underlying loan collateral. The repurchase of loans and indemnification payments related to first-lien and home equity repurchase claims generally resulted from material breaches of representations and warranties related to the loans’ material compliance with the applicable underwriting standards, including borrower misrepresentation, credit exceptions without sufficient compensating factors and non-compliance with underwriting procedures. The actual representations and warranties made in a sales transaction and the resulting repurchase and indemnification activity can vary by transaction or investor. A direct relationship between the type of defect that causes the breach of representations and warranties and the severity of the realized loss has not been observed. Transactions to repurchase or indemnification payments related to first-lien residential mortgages primarily involved the GSEs while transactions to repurchase or indemnification payments for home equity loans primarily involved the monoline insurers. The table below presents first-lien and home equity loan repurchases and indemnification payments for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.



Loan Repurchases and Indemnification Payments
	Three Months Ended June 30
	2012						2011
(Dollars in millions)	Unpaid Principal Balance		Cash Paid for Repurchases		Loss		Unpaid Principal Balance		Cash Paid for Repurchases		Loss
First-lien
Repurchases	$	500	$	520	$	86	$	860	$	970	$	419
Indemnification payments	197		48		48		958		539		539
Total first-lien	697		568		134		1,818		1,509		958
Home equity
Repurchases	12		12		—		3		3		—
Indemnification payments	14		11		11		45		48		48
Total home equity	26		23		11		48		51		48
Total first-lien and home equity	$	723	$	591	$	145	$	1,866	$	1,560	$	1,006

	Six Months Ended June 30
	2012						2011
First-lien
Repurchases	$	750	$	804	$	215	$	1,194	$	1,333	$	552
Indemnification payments	464		172		172		1,292		699		699
Total first-lien	1,214		976		387		2,486		2,032		1,251
Home equity
Repurchases	16		16		—		18		18		14
Indemnification payments	25		22		22		85		87		87
Total home equity	41		38		22		103		105		101
Total first-lien and home equity	$	1,255	$	1,014	$	409	$	2,589	$	2,137	$	1,352

Liability for Representations and Warranties and Corporate Guarantees

The liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Corporation's Consolidated Balance Sheet and the related provision is included in mortgage banking income. The table below presents a rollforward of the liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees.



Representations and Warranties and Corporate Guarantees
	Three Months Ended June 30						Six Months Ended June 30
(Dollars in millions)	2012			2011			2012			2011
Liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees, beginning of period	$	15,746		$	6,220		$	15,858		$	5,438
Additions for new sales	6			3			11			10
Charge-offs	(204		)	(2,480		)	(603		)	(2,718		)
Provision	395			14,037			677			15,050
Liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees, June 30	$	15,943		$	17,780		$	15,943		$	17,780

The liability for representations and warranties is established when those obligations are both probable and reasonably estimable. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, the provision for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees was $395 million and $677 million compared to $14.0 billion and $15.1 billion for the same periods in 2011. The provision in the three months ended June 30, 2012 included provision related to non-GSE exposures where it was determined that the loss was probable based on recent activity with certain counterparties and, to a lesser extent, GSE exposures. The decrease in the provision from the prior-year period was primarily due to a higher provision in the prior-year period attributable to the BNY Mellon Settlement, other non-GSE exposures, and to a lesser extent, GSE exposures.

Estimated Range of Possible Loss

Government-sponsored Enterprises

The Corporation’s estimated liability at June 30, 2012 for obligations under representations and warranties given to the GSEs considers, among other things, and is necessarily dependent on and limited by, its historical claims experience with the GSEs. It includes the Corporation’s understanding of its agreements with the GSEs and projections of future defaults as well as certain other assumptions and judgmental factors. The Corporation’s estimate of the liability for these obligations has been accounted for in the recorded liability for representations and warranties for these loans. The Corporation continued to experience elevated levels of new claims. Over time, the criteria and processes by which FNMA is ultimately willing to resolve claims have changed in ways that are unfavorable to the Corporation. While the Corporation is seeking to resolve its differences with FNMA, whether it will be able to achieve a resolution of these differences on acceptable terms and the timing and cost thereof, continues to be subject to significant uncertainty. The Corporation has repurchased and continues to repurchase loans to the extent required under the contracts that govern its relationships with the GSEs.

It is reasonably possible that future representations and warranties losses with respect to GSE exposures may occur in excess of the amounts recorded for the GSE exposures, and the amount of any such additional liability could be material. Due to the significant uncertainty related to the Corporation's continued differences with FNMA concerning each party's interpretation of the requirements of the governing contracts, it is not possible to reasonably estimate what the outcome or range of such additional possible loss may be.

Counterparties other than Government-sponsored Enterprises

In private-label securitizations, certain presentation thresholds need to be met in order for investors to direct securitization trustees to bring repurchase claims. The population of private-label securitizations included in the BNY Mellon Settlement encompasses almost all legacy Countrywide first-lien private-label securitizations including loans originated principally between 2004 and 2008. For the remainder of the population of private-label securitizations other claimants have come forward and the Corporation believes it is probable that other claimants in certain types of securitizations may continue to come forward with claims that meet the requirements of the terms of the securitizations. During the second quarter of 2012, the Corporation has seen an increase in repurchase claims from certain private-label securitization trustees. The Corporation believes that the provisions recorded in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement and the additional non-GSE representations and warranties provisions recorded have provided for a substantial portion of the Corporation’s non-GSE representations and warranties exposures. However, it is reasonably possible that future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of the amounts recorded for these exposures. In addition, as discussed below, the Corporation has not recorded any representations and warranties liability for certain potential monoline exposures and certain potential whole-loan and other private-label securitization exposures. The Corporation currently estimates that the range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of June 30, 2012 could be up to $5 billion over existing accruals. This estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties does not represent a probable loss, and is based on currently available information, significant judgment and a number of assumptions, including those set forth below, that are subject to change.

The methodology used to estimate the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss considers a variety of factors including the Corporation’s experience related to actual defaults, projected future defaults, historical loss experience, estimated home prices and other economic conditions. Among the factors that impact the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss are: (1) contractual material adverse effect requirements, (2) the representations and warranties provided and (3) the requirement to meet certain presentation thresholds. The first factor is based on the Corporation’s belief that a non-GSE contractual liability to repurchase a loan generally arises only if the counterparties prove there is a breach of representations and warranties that materially and adversely affects the interest of the investor or all investors, or of the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor (as applicable), in a securitization trust and, accordingly, the Corporation believes that the repurchase claimants must prove that the alleged representations and warranties breach was the cause of the loss. The second factor is related to the fact that non-GSE securitizations include different types of representations and warranties than those provided to the GSEs. The Corporation believes the non-GSE securitizations’ representations and warranties are less rigorous and actionable than the explicit provisions of comparable agreements with the GSEs without regard to any variations that may have arisen as a result of dealings with the GSEs. The third factor is related to the fact that certain presentation thresholds need to be met in order for any repurchase claim to be asserted on the initiative of investors under the non-GSE agreements. A securitization trustee may investigate or demand repurchase on its own action, and most agreements contain a threshold, for example 25 percent of the voting rights per trust, that allows investors to declare a servicing event of default under certain circumstances or to request certain action, such as requesting loan files, that the trustee may choose to accept and follow, exempt from liability, provided the trustee is acting in good faith. If there is an un-cured servicing event of default and the trustee fails to bring suit during a 60-day period, then, under most agreements, investors may file suit. In addition to this, most agreements also allow investors to direct the securitization trustee to investigate loan files or demand the repurchase of loans if security holders hold a specified percentage, for example, 25 percent, of the voting rights of each tranche of the outstanding securities. Although the Corporation continues to believe that presentation thresholds are a factor in the determination of probable loss, given the BNY Mellon Settlement, the estimated range of possible loss assumes that the presentation threshold can be met for all of the non-GSE securitization transactions.

In addition, in the case of private-label securitizations, the methodology used to estimate the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding ranges of possible loss considers the implied repurchase experience based on the BNY Mellon Settlement and assumes that the conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement are satisfied and also takes into account more recent experience such as increased claims, where relevant. Since the non-GSE transactions that were included in the BNY Mellon Settlement differ from those that were not included in the BNY Mellon Settlement, the Corporation adjusted the experience implied in the settlement in order to determine the estimated non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss. The judgmental adjustments made include consideration of the differences in the mix of products in the securitizations, loan originator, likelihood of claims expected, the differences in the number of payments that the borrower has made prior to default and the sponsor of the securitization.

Future provisions and/or ranges of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties may be significantly impacted if actual experiences are different from the Corporation’s assumptions in its predictive models, including, without limitation, those regarding ultimate resolution of the BNY Mellon Settlement, estimated repurchase rates, economic conditions, home prices, consumer and counterparty behavior and a variety of judgmental factors. Adverse developments with respect to one or more of the assumptions underlying the liability for representations and warranties and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss could result in significant increases to future provisions and/or the estimated range of possible loss. For example, if courts, in the context of claims brought by private-label securitization trustees, were to disagree with the Corporation’s interpretation that the underlying agreements require a claimant to prove that the representations and warranties breach was the cause of the loss, it could significantly impact this estimated range of possible loss. For additional information, see Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Additionally, if court rulings related to monoline litigation, including one related to the Corporation, that have allowed sampling of loan files instead of requiring a loan-by-loan review to determine if a representations and warranties breach has occurred are followed generally by the courts, private-label securitization investors may view litigation as a more attractive alternative as compared to a loan-by-loan review. Finally, although the Corporation believes that the representations and warranties typically given in non-GSE transactions are less rigorous and actionable than those given in GSE transactions, the Corporation does not have significant experience resolving loan-level claims in non-GSE transactions to measure the impact of these differences on the probability that a loan will be required to be repurchased.

The liability for obligations under representations and warranties with respect to GSE and non-GSE exposures and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties exposures does not consider any losses related to litigation matters disclosed in Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies, nor do they include any separate foreclosure costs and related costs, assessments and compensatory fees or any other possible losses related to potential claims for breaches of performance of servicing obligations (except as such losses are included as potential costs of the BNY Mellon Settlement), potential securities law or fraud claims or potential indemnity or other claims against the Corporation, including claims related to loans insured by the FHA. The Corporation is not able to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss with respect to any such servicing, securities law, fraud or other claims against the Corporation, except to the extent reflected in the aggregate range of possible loss for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed in Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies; however, such loss could be material.

Government-sponsored Enterprises Experience

Generally, the Corporation first becomes aware that a GSE is evaluating a particular loan for repurchase when the Corporation receives a request from a GSE to review the underlying loan file (file request). Upon completing its review, the GSE may submit a repurchase claim to the Corporation. As soon as practicable after receiving a repurchase claim from either of the GSEs, the Corporation evaluates the claim and takes appropriate action. Claim disputes are generally handled through loan-level negotiations with the GSEs and the Corporation seeks to resolve the repurchase claim within 90 to 120 days of the receipt of the claim although claims remain open beyond this timeframe. Disputes include reasonableness of stated income, occupancy, undisclosed liabilities, and the validity of MI claim rescissions in the vintages with the highest default rates.

The Corporation and its subsidiaries have an established history of working with the GSEs on repurchase claims. However, FNMA's repurchase requests, standards for rescission of repurchase requests and resolution processes have become increasingly inconsistent with their prior conduct and the Corporation’s interpretation of the parties' contractual obligations. The Corporation continued to experience elevated levels of new claims on loans on which borrowers have made a significant number of payments (e.g., at least 25 payments), and, to a lesser extent, loans which had defaulted more than 18 months prior to the repurchase request. Over time the criteria and the processes by which FNMA is ultimately willing to resolve claims have changed in ways that are unfavorable to the Corporation. In light of its disagreements with FNMA, the Corporation has adopted repurchase guidelines in order to be more consistent with past practices between the parties based on its understanding of its contractual obligations. These developments have resulted in an increase in claims outstanding from the GSEs to $11.0 billion at June 30, 2012 from $6.3 billion at December 31, 2011. Outstanding claims related to loans on which the borrower had made at least 25 payments totaled $7.9 billion at June 30, 2012 compared to $3.7 billion at December 31, 2011. The Corporation expects outstanding claims to continue to increase until it has resolved its differences with FNMA. While the Corporation is seeking to resolve its differences with FNMA, whether it will be able to achieve a resolution of these differences on acceptable terms, and the timing and cost thereof, is subject to significant uncertainty. For additional information, see Mortgage Insurance Rescission Notices on page 196.

Monoline Insurers Experience

The Corporation has had limited representations and warranties repurchase claims experience with the monoline insurers, due to ongoing litigation against legacy Countrywide and/or Bank of America. To the extent the Corporation received repurchase claims from the monolines that are properly presented, it generally reviews them on a loan-by-loan basis. Where a breach of representations and warranties given by the Corporation or subsidiaries or legacy companies is confirmed on a given loan, settlement is generally reached as to that loan within 60 to 90 days.

For the monolines that have instituted litigation against legacy Countrywide and/or Bank of America, when claims from these counterparties are denied, the Corporation does not indicate its reason for denial as it is not contractually obligated to do so. In the Corporation's experience, the monolines have been generally unwilling to withdraw repurchase claims, regardless of whether and what evidence was offered to refute a claim. When a claim has been denied and there has not been communication with the counterparty for six months, the Corporation views these claims as inactive; however, they remain in the outstanding claims balance until resolution.

To the extent there are repurchase claims based on valid identified loan defects and determined that there is a breach of a representation and warranty and that any other requirements for repurchase have been met, a liability for representations and warranties is established. Outside of the standard quality control process that is an integral part of the Corporation's loan origination process, it does not generally review loan files until a repurchase claim is received, including with respect to monoline exposures. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of those repurchase claims where a valid defect has not been identified or in predicting future claim requests and the related outcome in the case of unasserted claims to repurchase loans from the securitization trusts in which these monolines have insured all or some of the related bonds, the Corporation cannot reasonably estimate the eventual outcome through the repurchase process. As a result, a liability for representations and warranties has not been established related to repurchase claims where a valid defect has not been identified, or in the case of any unasserted claims to repurchase loans from the securitization trusts in which such monolines have insured all or some of the related bonds. For additional information related to the monolines, see Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies herein and Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

At June 30, 2012, for loans originated between 2004 and 2008, the unpaid principal balance of loans related to unresolved monoline repurchase claims was $3.1 billion, substantially all of which the Corporation has reviewed and declined to repurchase based on an assessment of whether a material breach exists. This amount includes $674 million of claims that were resolved through the Syncora Settlement on July 17, 2012. As noted above, a portion of the repurchase claims that are initially denied are ultimately resolved through bulk settlement, repurchase or make-whole payments, after additional dialogue and negotiation with the monoline insurer. At June 30, 2012, the unpaid principal balance of loans in these vintages for which the monolines had requested loan files for review but for which no repurchase claim had been received was $7.1 billion, including $1.8 billion of file requests for loans included in trusts settled with Syncora subsequent to June 30, 2012. There will likely be additional requests for loan files in the future leading to repurchase claims. Such claims may relate to loans that are currently in securitization trusts or loans that have defaulted and are no longer included in the unpaid principal balance of the loans in the trusts. However, it is unlikely that a repurchase claim will be received for every loan in a securitization or every file requested or that a valid defect exists for every loan repurchase claim. In addition, amounts paid on repurchase claims from a monoline are paid to the securitization trust and are applied in accordance with the terms of the governing securitization documents which may include use by the securitization trust to repay any outstanding monoline advances or reduce future advances from the monolines. To the extent that a monoline has not advanced funds or does not anticipate that it will be required to advance funds to the securitization trust, the likelihood of receiving a repurchase claim from a monoline may be reduced as the monoline would receive limited or no benefit from the payment of repurchase claims. Moreover, some monolines are not currently performing their obligations under the financial guaranty policies they issued which may, in certain circumstances, impact their ability to present repurchase claims, although in those circumstances, investors may be able to bring claims if contractual thresholds are met.

Whole Loan Sales and Private-label Securitizations Experience

At June 30, 2012, for loans originated between 2004 and 2008, the unpaid principal balance of loans related to unresolved repurchase claims submitted by private-label securitization trustees and third-party whole-loan investors was $8.3 billion. The Corporation has performed an initial review with respect to $5.7 billion of these claims and does not believe a valid basis for repurchase has been established by the claimant and is still in the process of reviewing the remaining $2.6 billion of these claims.

The majority of the repurchase claims that the Corporation has received and resolved outside of those from the GSEs and monolines are from third-party whole-loan investors. The Corporation provided representations and warranties and the whole-loan investors may retain those rights even when the loans were aggregated with other collateral into private-label securitizations sponsored by the whole-loan investors. The Corporation reviews properly presented repurchase claims for these whole loans on a loan-by-loan basis. If, after the Corporation’s review, it does not believe a claim is valid, it will deny the claim and generally indicate a reason for the denial. When the whole-loan investor agrees with the Corporation’s denial of the claim, the whole-loan investor may rescind the claim. When there is disagreement as to the resolution of the claim, meaningful dialogue and negotiation between the parties is generally necessary to reach a conclusion on an individual claim. Generally, a whole-loan investor is engaged in the repurchase process and the Corporation and the whole-loan investor reach resolution, either through loan-by-loan negotiation or at times, through a bulk settlement. Through June 30, 2012, 25 percent of the whole-loan claims that the Corporation initially denied have subsequently been resolved through repurchase or make-whole payments and 51 percent have been resolved through rescission or repayment in full by the borrower. Although the timeline for resolution varies, once an actionable breach is identified on a given loan, settlement is generally reached as to that loan within 60 to 90 days. When a claim has been denied and the Corporation does not have communication with the counterparty for six months, the Corporation views these claims as inactive; however, they remain in the outstanding claims balance until resolution. In the case of private-label securitization trustees, there is currently no established process in place for the parties to reach a conclusion on an individual loan if there is a disagreement on the resolution of the claim.

In private-label securitizations, certain presentation thresholds need to be met in order for investors to direct a trustee to assert repurchase claims. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, the Corporation received $3.7 billion and $5.3 billion of such repurchase claims, including claims related to third-party sponsored transactions that include monoline insurance. Recent increases in new private-label claims are primarily related to repurchase requests received from trustees for private-label securitization transactions not included in the BNY Mellon Settlement, including claims related to first-lien third-party sponsored securitizations that include monoline insurance. Over time, there has been an increased trend for both requests for loan files and repurchase claims from certain private-label securitization trustees, as well as an increase in requests for tolling agreements to toll the applicable statutes of limitation relating to representations and warranties claims, and the Corporation believes it is likely that these requests will lead to an increase in repurchase claims from private-label securitization trustees with standing to bring such claims. The representations and warranties, as governed by the private-label securitization agreements, generally require that counterparties have the ability to both assert a claim and actually prove that a loan has an actionable defect under the applicable contracts. While the Corporation believes the agreements for private-label securitizations generally contain less rigorous representations and warranties and place higher burdens on investors seeking repurchases than the express provisions of comparable agreements with the GSEs, without regard to any variations that may have arisen as a result of dealings with the GSEs, the agreements generally include a representation that underwriting practices were prudent and customary. For additional information on repurchase demands, see Unresolved Repurchase Claims on page 194.