Topic: Banking-Assets
Report type: Competitive Landscape and Operating Strategy Study of Residential Mortgage Finance (住房按揭金融业务竞争格局与经营策略研究报告)

In the U.S. existing home mortgage market, competition between large national banks and regional banks continues to evolve. As a major market participant, JPMorgan Chase exhibits strong industry representativeness in terms of business footprint, product capabilities, and risk management practices.

Conduct a systematic assessment of JPMorgan Chase’s competitive position in the U.S. existing home mortgage market. Based on a review of peer banks’ mortgage lending activities—including both large national banks and regional institutions—evaluate JPMorgan Chase’s relative strengths and weaknesses across product design, pricing and interest rate strategies, approval and funding efficiency, channel deployment, and risk management and compliance capabilities.

Taking into account shifts in the U.S. housing market cycle and the evolution of mortgage-related regulatory frameworks, propose actionable directions for business optimization and competitive strategy.

## Evaluation Criteria for Research Reports on JPMC's Competitive Position in the U.S. Existing-Home Mortgage Market

This rubric provides a systematic, actionable, and quantitative framework to evaluate research reports focused on JPMC's competitive position in the U.S. existing-home mortgage lending market. Scoring emphasizes: rigor of peer benchmarking, depth of professional decomposition of the mortgage value chain, explicit integration of cycle and regulatory factors, and the executability plus risk/compliance completeness of strategic recommendations. The framework includes 4 top-level dimensions and 14 second-level dimensions, totaling 100 points, and is designed to support consistent use in both human review and LLM-based automated scoring.

---

### 1. Market Definition and Peer Benchmarking Framework (25 points)

#### (1) Clarity of problem boundaries and business/value-chain definition (8 points)
- 7-8: Clearly defines the 'Existing Home' context (primarily purchase mortgages, distinguished from new-home/construction lending), and breaks down the mortgage value chain (origination/underwriting/closing/sell or hold-on-balance-sheet/servicing/MSR/risk hedging). Provides explicit definitions for key segmentations such as purchase vs. refi, agency vs. non-agency, and retail vs. correspondent/broker.
- 4-6: Explains the basic scope of existing-home mortgages, but key segmentation definitions are incomplete, or the distinctions between origination and servicing and/or hold vs. sell are insufficiently clarified.
- 0-3: Scope is vague; mixes existing-home with the overall mortgage market, or lacks a structured value-chain decomposition.

#### (2) Reasonableness of peer set selection and control of comparability (8 points)
- 7-8: Covers both national banks and regional banks, and explains selection rationale (asset size, mortgage activity level, channel model, geographic footprint, agency mix, etc.). Clearly states what is comparable and how non-comparable items are handled (e.g., accounting treatments, differences in sell vs. hold strategies).
- 4-6: Peer coverage is broadly adequate, but lacks comparability explanation, or the regional-bank sample is not sufficiently representative.
- 0-3: Peer selection is arbitrary and poorly justified, weakening the credibility of benchmarking conclusions.

#### (3) Depiction of market structure and competitive landscape (9 points)
- 8-9: Uses verifiable metrics to describe the landscape (e.g., HMDA origination share, purchase mix, average rate/points, closing cycle time, denial-rate decomposition, channel mix, servicing scale/MSR, etc.), and distinguishes competitive factors across different cycle phases (high-rate vs. low-rate, tight vs. ample inventory).
- 5-7: Provides some data/fact support, but the metric set is incomplete, or lacks segmentation (channel/region/customer segment), resulting in an overly coarse competitive picture.
- 0-4: Mainly qualitative description; lacks structured metrics and verifiable support.

---

### 2. Comparative Assessment of Competitive Drivers (Product, Pricing, Efficiency, Channels, Experience) (35 points)

#### (1) Product design and fit to target segments/scenarios (7 points)
- 6-7: Compares differences between JPMC and peers in product suite and policy (e.g., conforming/jumbo, ARM/FRM, down-payment structures, relationship pricing, first-time buyer programs, low-down-payment/affordability solutions, etc.), and links them to key pain points in the existing-home transaction chain (rate lock, closing window, appraisal/underwriting).
- 3-5: Covers major product types but is mostly a list; lacks fit-to-scenario analysis for the existing-home purchase context.
- 0-2: Product analysis is generic and does not reflect differentiation or business implications.

#### (2) Pricing and rate strategy comparison (including points/fees/lock/hedging) (8 points)
- 7-8: Compares rate pricing mechanisms and strategies (rate/points/fees, impacts of LLPA/credit score/LTV, relationship discounts, rate-lock strategy) and explains underlying constraints (funding costs, capital usage, GSE/secondary-market execution, pipeline hedging). Connects trade-offs across cycles (volume capture vs. margin protection).
- 4-6: Compares headline rates or fees but lacks explanation of funding costs/hedging/secondary-market mechanics.
- 0-3: Only concludes 'higher/lower rates' without mechanisms or evidence.

#### (3) Approval-to-funding efficiency (underwriting, closing, operating capability) (7 points)
- 6-7: Uses comparable metrics/process mapping to characterize efficiency (application-to-clear-to-close, closing timeline, automated underwriting share, number of document re-requests, denial-reason structure, etc.) and explains drivers of differences (systems, risk policy, staffing, coordination with third-party appraisal/title/insurance).
- 3-5: Discusses 'fast/slow' but lacks metrics or fails to pinpoint process bottlenecks.
- 0-2: Efficiency assessment is subjective and lacks verifiable basis.

#### (4) Channel footprint and customer acquisition cost structure (7 points)
- 6-7: Compares JPMC and peers across branch retail, online direct, broker/third-party, correspondent, and partner ecosystems (realtors/builders/platforms), and discusses implications for existing-home conversion (lead quality, conversion rate, per-loan acquisition cost, regional penetration).
- 3-5: Mentions channel differences but lacks cost/conversion/KPI perspective or linkage to the existing-home context.
- 0-2: Channel analysis stops at 'has branches/has online' without business meaning.

#### (5) Customer experience and cross-sell/relationship synergy (6 points)
- 5-6: Evaluates key customer-journey touchpoints (pre-approval, rate lock, closing coordination, post-close servicing) and, leveraging large-bank advantages, discusses how to coordinate with deposits, wealth management, credit cards, etc., including boundaries and compliance constraints.
- 3-4: Mentions experience or synergy but lacks actionable decomposition or remains conceptual.
- 0-2: Does not reflect linkage between mortgage business and relationship management, or conclusions are empty.

---

### 3. Cycle and Regulatory Integration; Risk and Compliance Capability (20 points)

#### (1) Housing/interest-rate cycle framework and scenario analysis (7 points)
- 6-7: Builds a transmission chain from 'rates -> affordability -> transaction volume -> home prices/inventory -> defaults/loss severity -> mortgage profitability'. Provides at least 2 scenarios (e.g., rates decline and refinancing window reopens; rates stay high and purchase volumes stagnate) and derives implications for JPMC vs. peers.
- 3-5: Describes cycle impacts but the transmission chain is incomplete, or lacks scenario quantification/trigger conditions.
- 0-2: Barely integrates cycle variables, or reduces cycle impact to slogans.

#### (2) Comparative risk management capability (credit/market/operational/model/hedging) (8 points)
- 7-8: Compares JPMC and peers on credit risk (FICO, DTI, LTV policies and denial structure), interest-rate and pipeline risk (rate lock/hedging), MSR valuation and hedging, and operational risk (fraud, documentation, third parties). Identifies trade-offs among 'risk appetite -> scale growth -> capital usage'.
- 4-6: Covers some risk points but misses key links such as hedging/MSR/operational risk, or the comparison is not systematic.
- 0-3: Risk discussion is generic (only 'strong/weak risk control') and misses mortgage-specific risk drivers.

#### (3) Regulatory and compliance capability (QM/ATR, HMDA, Fair Lending, UDAAP, etc.) (5 points)
- 4-5: Clearly identifies core mortgage regulatory constraints and how they affect product, pricing, underwriting, and channels (e.g., fair lending, explainability of pricing differences, denial reason disclosures, consumer protection, data reporting and audit readiness). Proposes process and monitoring controls that embed compliance into operations.
- 2-3: Mentions regulatory terms but does not explain impacts on operating decisions, or lacks specific controls.
- 0-1: Ignores regulation/compliance, or proposes actions with obvious compliance/reputational risk.

---

### 4. Executability of Strategic Recommendations and Value Realization (20 points)

#### (1) Targeted optimization directions and competitive strategy (8 points)
- 7-8: Recommendations directly address weaknesses/opportunities identified in the benchmarking (e.g., pricing strategy, products for specific segments, channel redesign, closing-efficiency uplift, MSR strategy, etc.) and clearly specify differentiated approaches against national banks vs. regional banks.
- 4-6: Directions are reasonable but weakly connected to prior comparative findings, or lacks differentiated playbooks by competitor type.
- 0-3: Recommendations are generic (e.g., 'strengthen risk control/improve service') and not targeted.

#### (2) Implementation path (org, systems, processes) and KPI design (7 points)
- 6-7: Provides an executable roadmap (phases, accountable owners, system changes/data needs, partner management) and defines measurable KPIs (e.g., pull-through rate, rate-lock conversion, closing time, acquisition cost per loan, denial-rate structure, delinquency/loss rates, customer satisfaction).
- 3-5: Includes partial implementation detail or KPIs, but not systematic; lacks resources/organization and timeline.
- 0-2: Lacks an implementation plan and quantitative metrics.

#### (3) Risk-return trade-offs and constraints (capital, liquidity, compliance, reputation) (5 points)
- 4-5: Compares sources of upside and costs/risks (spread, fees, share gains, cross-sell vs. capital usage, hedging cost, compliance cost, reputational risk) and states boundaries/trigger thresholds for 'do vs. not do'.
- 2-3: Mentions risk-return but lacks a quantified framework or clear boundary conditions.
- 0-1: Talks only about growth without constraints, or ignores hard constraints such as capital and compliance.