Full text of HAMP Performance Summary : Making Home Affordable Program : Program Performance Report, Through October 2011

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Report Highlights
More Than 880,000 Homeowners Granted Permanent Modifications
• Program to date, homeowners in permanent modifications have saved an
estimated $9.4 billion in monthly mortgage payments. Homeowners in active first
lien permanent modifications save a median of $527 per month – more than onethird of the median before-modification payment.
• This month, additional detail on the Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA) is
available, including activity by servicer. Homeowners in modifications with the
PRA feature have experienced a median principal reduction of nearly one-third of
the before-modification principal balance.
• Program data indicate that participants in PRA are further underwater and more
seriously delinquent at trial start than the overall population of HAMP
participants. 89% of homeowners in the PRA program are at least 60 days
delinquent at trial start (compared to 79% of the overall portfolio) with a beforemodification loan-to-value ratio of 158% (compared to 120% for the overall HAMP
portfolio).

This Month: Q3 2011 Servicer Assessment Results

• For the third quarter of 2011, one servicer was determined to need substantial
improvement in their compliance with MHA guidelines. This servicer was also in
need of substantial improvement for the first and second quarter of 2011, and
their servicer incentives will continue to be withheld.
• Two servicers met the established benchmarks for program compliance, indicating
that they require just minor improvement on the areas reviewed for the third
quarter. Seven servicers were found to need moderate improvement, with the
continued withholding of servicer incentives for one of them.

Inside:
SUMMARY RESULTS:
First Lien Modification Activity
First Lien Modification Characteristics/
Modifications By Investor Type
Principal Reduction Alternative
Activity for 2MP, Treasury FHA-HAMP, HAFA
and UP
HAMP Activity by State
HAMP Activity by MSA/
Homeowner Outreach
Aged Trials

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

SERVICER RESULTS:
First Lien Modification Activity by
Servicer
First Lien, PRA, 2MP, and HAFA
Activity by Servicer
Trial Length
Conversion Rate
Homeowner Experience
Disposition of Homeowners Not in
HAMP

9
10
11
12
13
14-15

SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS:
Overview
Servicer Results
Description of Metrics
APPENDICES:
Participants in MHA Programs

16-18
19-38
39
40-41

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

HAMP Activity: First Lien Modifications

HAMP Trials Started

(As of Sep. 30, 2011)

Eligible Delinquent Loans1
Eligible Delinquent Borrowers2
Trial Plan Offers Extended (Cumulative)3
All Trials Started

Trial
Modifications

Permanent
Modifications

965,579
1,948,316
1,735,457

1,650

1,638

1,500

21,445

Trial Modifications Canceled (Cumulative)

767,321

1,450

Active Trials

85,060

1,400

All Permanent Modifications Started

883,076

1,350

26,102

Permanent Modifications Canceled
(Cumulative)5

147,612

Active Permanent Modifications

735,464

1,735

1,580

50

1,511

0
Jan 2011

Permanent Modifications Reported Since
September 2011 Report

1,684

1,722

1,545

1,550

Trials Reported Since September 2011 Report4

1,663

1,704

1,612

1,600

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Source: HAMP system of record. Servicers may enter new trial modifications into the HAMP system of
record at any time. For example, 21,445 trials have entered the HAMP system of record since the prior
report; 13,067 were trials with a first payment recorded in October 2011.

Permanent Modifications Started (Cumulative)
1,000

eligible 60+ day delinquent loans as reported by servicers as of September 30, 2011, include conventional

loans:
 in foreclosure and bankruptcy.
 with a current unpaid principal balance less than $729,750 on a one-unit property, $934,200 on a two-unit
property, $1,129,250 on a three-unit property and $1,403,400 on a four-unit property.
 on a property that was owner-occupied at origination.
 originated on or before January 1, 2009.
Estimated eligible 60+ day delinquent loans exclude:
 FHA and VA loans.
 loans that are current or less than 60 days delinquent, which may be eligible for HAMP if a borrower is in imminent
default.
2 The estimated eligible 60+ day delinquent borrowers are those in HAMP-eligible loans, minus estimated exclusions of
loans on vacant properties, loans with borrower debt-to-income ratio below 31%, loans that fail the NPV test,
properties no longer owner-occupied, unemployed borrowers, manufactured housing loans with title/chattel issues
that exclude them from HAMP, loans where the investor pooling and servicing agreements preclude modification,
and trial and permanent modifications disqualified from HAMP. Exclusions for DTI and NPV results are estimated
using market analytics.
3 As reported in the monthly servicer survey of large SPA servicers through October 31, 2011.
4 Servicers may enter new trial modifications into the HAMP system of record at anytime.
5 A permanent modification is canceled when the borrower has missed three consecutive monthly payments. Includes
2,399 loans paid off.

All Permanent Modifications Started (000s)

1 Estimated

1,700

2,507,171
All Trials Started (000s)

HAMP Eligibility

Monthly Trial Starts (Right Axis)

1,750

Total

100

Cumulative Trial Starts (Left Axis)

New Trials Started (000s)

1,800

HAMP is designed to lower monthly mortgage payments to help struggling
homeowners stay in their homes and prevent avoidable foreclosure.

900

857

800

763

700
600

608

634

699

817

731

500
400
Jan 2011

Feb

Source: HAMP system of record.

Note: Unless specified, exhibits in this report refer to HAMP first lien modification activity.

670

791

883

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

2

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Homeowner Benefits and First Lien Modification Characteristics

• Aggregate savings to homeowners who received HAMP first
lien permanent modifications are estimated to total nearly
$9.4 billion, program to date, compared with unmodified
mortgage obligations.

• The primary hardship reasons for homeowners in active permanent
modifications are:
• 62.2% experienced loss of income (curtailment of income or
unemployment)
• 11.0% reported excessive obligation
• 3.0% reported an illness of the principal borrower

• The median monthly savings for borrowers in active permanent
first lien modifications is $527.05, or 37% of the median
monthly payment before modification.
• Of trial modifications started, 79% of homeowners were at least 60
days delinquent at trial start. The rest were up to 59 days delinquent
or current and in imminent default.

• Active permanent modifications feature the following modification
steps:
• 98.3% feature interest rate reductions
• 58.8% offer term extension
• 30.9% include principal forbearance

Modifications by Investor Type (Large Servicers)

Servicer
American Home Mortgage
Servicing Inc.

GSE

Private

Total Active
Modifications

Portfolio

1,307

25,743

-

27,050

Bank of America, NA1

96,741

60,370

10,152

167,263

CitiMortgage, Inc.

31,701

5,653

17,289

54,643

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

24,816

5,800

11,568

42,184

JPMorgan Chase NA2

58,731

51,145

23,922

133,798

81

11,924

8

12,013

6,990

23,635

112

30,737

14,673

14,755

2,513

31,941

523

16,282

2,536

19,341

Wells Fargo Bank, NA 3

51,277

15,876

44,815

111,968

Other HAMP Servicers

139,484

33,650

16,452

189,586

Total

426,324

264,833

129,367

820,524

Litton Loan Servicing LP
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
OneWest Bank
Select Portfolio Servicing

Select Median Characteristics of Active Permanent Modifications

Loan Characteristic

Before
After
Modification Modification

Median
Decrease

Front-End Debt-to-Income
Ratio1

45.2%

31.0%

-14.3 pct pts

Back-End Debt-to-Income
Ratio2

78.2%

61.3%

-14.7 pct pts

Median Monthly Housing
Payment3

$1,427.88

$830.54

-$527.05

1

Ratio of housing expenses (principal, interest, taxes, insurance and homeowners association and/or condo
fees) to monthly gross income.
Ratio of total monthly debt payments (including mortgage principal and interest, taxes, insurance, homeowners
association and/or condo fees, plus payments on installment debts, junior liens, alimony, car lease payments and
investment property payments) to monthly gross income. Borrowers who have a back-end debt-to-income ratio of
greater than 55% are required to seek housing counseling under program guidelines.
3 Principal and interest payment.
2

1 Bank

of America, NA includes all loans previously reported under BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Home Loan Services and
Wilshire Credit Corporation.
2 JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under EMC Mortgage Corporation.
3 Wells Fargo Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under Wachovia Mortgage, FSB.
Note: Figures reflect active trials and active permanent modifications.

3

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA)
The Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA) was implemented in October 2010. PRA requires servicers of non-GSE loans to evaluate the
benefit of principal reduction for mortgages with a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 115% or greater when evaluating a homeowner for a HAMP
first lien modification. While servicers are required to evaluate homeowners for PRA, they are not required to offer principal reduction and
generally may only do so when permitted by the mortgage investor.
PRA pays investors incentives for every dollar of principal forgiven, according to a sliding scale and depending on the degree to which the
homeowner's unmodified balance is greater than the market value of the home. PRA can be a feature of a HAMP trial or permanent
modification.
PRA Activity

Modification Characteristics

While both GSE and non-GSE loans are eligible for HAMP, at the present time due to
GSE policy, servicers can only offer PRA on non-GSE modifications under HAMP.
Servicer volume can vary based on the investor composition of the servicer’s portfolio
and respective policy with regards to PRA.
To date, the 10 largest MHA servicers account for 97% of all trial modifications started
with PRA, and the top three MHA servicers account for 68% of all PRA volume (and over
50% of overall HAMP volume). (See page 10 for additional servicer detail.)
All PRA Trial Modifications Started
PRA Trial Modifications Active

53,323

While the population of loan modifications with the PRA feature is still relatively small, the
program data indicate that there are more homeowners seriously delinquent at the time of
trial start than the overall population of HAMP borrowers.
Overall, homeowners receiving permanent loan modifications with the PRA feature also have
a higher before-modification LTV ratio than those without the PRA feature.
Loan Characteristics

All 1MP2

1MP with PRA

Of trials started, delinquency at trial start:
- At least 60 days delinquent

79%

89%

- Up to 59 days delinquent or current and in imminent default

21%

11%

25%
12%
5%
42%

30%
17%
6%
53%

17,046
Top three States by Activity3, Percent of Total Activity:

All PRA Permanent Modifications Started

33,376

PRA Permanent Modifications Active

32,171

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Active Permanent
Modifications

$65,172

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Active Permanent
Modifications (%)1

31.3%

- California
- Florida
- Illinois
Top three States’ Percent of Total
Active Permanent Modifications – Median Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio:

PRA amount as a percentage of before-modification UPB, excluding capitalization.
Includes HAMP first lien modifications with and without the PRA feature.
3 Figures reflect active trials and active permanent modifications.
4 Because the first step of the standard HAMP waterfall includes the capitalization of accrued interest, outof-pocket escrow advances to third parties, any escrow advances made to third parties during the trial
period plan, and servicing advances that are made for costs and expenses incurred in performing servicing
obligations, this can result in an increase in the principal balance after modification. As a result, the loanto-value ratio can increase in the modification process.

- Before Modification

120%

158%

- After Modification4

123%

115%

1
2

Active Permanent Modifications – Median before Modification Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio:
- Front-End DTI

45.2%

44.8%

- Back-End DTI

78.2%

71.9%

4

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Second Lien Modification Program (2MP) Activity
The Second Lien Modification Program (2MP) provides assistance to homeowners in
a first lien permanent modification who have an eligible second lien with a
participating HAMP servicer. This assistance can result in a modification of the
second lien and even full or partial extinguishment of the second lien. 2MP requires
that the first lien HAMP modification be permanent and active and that the second
lien have an unpaid balance of more than $5,000 and a monthly payment of $100 or
greater.

All Second Lien Modifications Started (Cumulative)1

50,434

Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien
Extinguishments

8,634

Second Lien Modifications Disqualified2
Active Second Lien Modifications

922
40,878

Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) Activity
The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA) offers incentives for
homeowners looking to exit their homes through a short sale or deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure. HAFA has established important homeowner protections and an industry
standard for streamlined transactions. In 22% of HAFA agreements started, the
homeowner began a HAMP trial modification but later requested a HAFA agreement
or was disqualified from HAMP.

All HAFA Agreements Started1

34,605

HAFA Agreements Active

8,818

HAFA Transactions Completed

20,701

Completed Transactions – Short Sale
Completed Transactions – Deed-in-Lieu

20,110
591

1 Servicer

Of the Active Second Lien Modifications:

Second Lien Partially Extinguished

1,569

Second Lien Loan Modifications3

39,309

agreement with homeowner for terms of potential short sale, which lasts at least 120 days; or
agreement for a deed-in-lieu transaction. A short sale requires a third-party purchaser and cooperation of junior
lienholders and mortgage insurers to complete the transaction. All HAFA Agreements Started include HAFA
Agreements Active, HAFA Transactions Completed, and HAFA Transactions Canceled.

Unemployment Program (UP) Activity

Second Lien Extinguishment Details
Average Amount of Full Extinguishment

$70,356

Average Amount of Partial Extinguishment

$7,037

1 Includes

second lien modifications reported into HAMP system of record through the end of cycle for October
2011 data, though the effective date may occur in November. Number of modifications is net of cancellations,
which are primarily due to servicer data corrections.
2 Includes 70 loans paid off.
3 Second lien modifications follow a series of steps and may include capitalization, interest rate reduction, term
extension and principal forbearance or forgiveness.

Treasury FHA-HAMP Modification Activity
The Treasury FHA-HAMP Program provides assistance to eligible homeowners
with FHA-insured mortgages.
All Treasury FHA-HAMP Trial Modifications Started

6,952

Treasury FHA-HAMP Permanent Modifications Started

4,900

The Treasury MHA Unemployment Program (UP) provides a temporary forbearance
to homeowners who are unemployed. Under Treasury guidelines, unemployed
homeowners must be considered for a minimum of 12 months’ forbearance.

All UP Forbearance Plans Started (through Sep. 2011)

16,151

UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required

13,313

UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required

2,838

Note: Data is as reported by servicers via survey for UP participation through Sep. 30, 2011.

See Appendix A2 for servicer participants in additional Making Home Affordable programs.

5

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

HAMP Activity by State

State

% of
U.S.
Active Permanent
State HAMP
Trials Modifications Total1 Activity State

Modification Activity by State

% of
U.S.
Active Permanent State HAMP
Trials Modifications Total1 Activity

AK

48

316

364

0.0%

MT

90

849

939

0.1%

AL

502

4,111

4,613

0.6%

NC

1,403

13,220

14,623

1.8%

AR

197

1,599

1,796

0.2%

ND

16

120

136

0.0%

AZ

2,618

32,361

34,979

4.3%

NE

105

997

1,102

0.1%

CA

20,457

182,514

202,971

24.7%

NH

390

3,320

3,710

0.5%

CO

1,065

10,104

11,169

1.4%

NJ

2,963

23,525

26,488

3.2%

CT

1,056

9,118

10,174

1.2%

NM

304

2,371

2,675

0.3%

DC

165

1,227

1,392

0.2%

NV

1,761

18,433

20,194

2.5%

DE

272

2,229

2,501

0.3%

NY

5,095

34,119

39,214

4.8%

FL

11,311

88,022

99,333

12.1%

OH

1,872

15,980

17,852

2.2%

GA

3,157

26,538

29,695

3.6%

OK

237

1,666

1,903

HI

270

2,800

3,070

0.4%

OR

860

8,028

8,888

1.1%

IA

217

1,824

2,041

0.2%

PA

1,754

15,005

16,759

2.0%

ID

304

2,840

3,144

0.4%

RI

396

3,809

4,205

0.5%

IL

4,480

39,180

43,660

5.3%

SC

821

6,843

7,664

0.9%

IN

833

6,999

7,832

1.0%

SD

28

269

297

0.0%

KS

231

1,717

1,948

0.2%

TN

946

7,498

8,444

1.0%

KY

311

2,759

3,070

0.4%

TX

2,631

19,065

21,696

2.6%

LA

606

4,027

4,633

0.6%

UT

620

6,943

7,563

0.9%

0.2%

MA

1,966

17,963

19,929

2.4%

VA

1,770

17,610

19,380

2.4%

MD

2,545

23,451

25,996

3.2%

VT

88

615

703

0.1%

ME

273

2,026

2,299

0.3%

WA

1,952

14,747

16,699

2.0%

MI

2,365

23,618

25,983

3.2%

WI

848

7,005

7,853

1.0%

MN

1,068

12,408

13,476

1.6%

WV

105

1,044

1,149

0.1%

MO

840

7,501

8,341

1.0%

WY

32

374

406

0.0%

MS

324

2,699

3,023

0.4%

Other2

492

2,058

2,550

0.3%

1

Total reflects active trials and active permanent modifications.
2 Includes Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

HAMP Modifications
Note: Includes active trial and permanent
modifications from the official HAMP system of
record.

5,000 and lower

20,001 – 35,000

5,001 – 10,000

35,001 and higher

10,001 – 20,000

Mortgage Delinquency Rates by State

Source: 3rd Quarter 2011
National Delinquency
Survey, Mortgage
Bankers Association.

60+ Day Delinquency Rate
5.0% and lower
5.01% - 10.0%

10.01% - 15.0%
15.01% - 20.0%

20.01%
and higher

6

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline Volume

15 Metropolitan Areas With Highest HAMP Activity

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana,
CA
New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-PA
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario,
CA
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano
Beach, FL

Total MSA % of U.S.
HAMP
HAMP
Activity
Activity

Active
Trials

Permanent
Modifications

6,949

54,693

61,642

7.5%

6,424

45,989

52,413

6.4%

4,336

37,967

42,303

5.2%

3,461

38,594

42,055

5.1%

Program to
Date

October

Total Number of Calls Taken at
1-888-995-HOPE

2,605,355

67,411

Borrowers Receiving Free Housing
Counseling Assistance Through the
Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline

1,237,497

31,662

Source: Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline. Numbers reflect calls that resulted in customer records.

5,272

36,360

41,632

5.1%

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ

1,965

26,294

28,259

3.4%

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,
DC-VA-MD-WV

2,476

24,992

27,468

3.3%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA

2,513

21,446

23,959

2.9%

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

2,064

14,976

17,040

2.1%

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV

1,467

15,142

16,609

2.0%

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI

1,435

14,323

15,758

1.9%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL MSA

1,479

13,615

15,094

1.8%

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA

1,490

13,147

14,637

1.8%

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH

1,426

12,903

14,329

1.7%

Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville,
CA

1,323

12,633

13,956

1.7%

Selected Homeowner Outreach Measures
Homeowner Outreach Events Hosted Nationally by
Treasury and Partners (cumulative)
Homeowners Attending Treasury-Sponsored Events
(cumulative)

60
59,519

Servicer Solicitation of Borrowers (cumulative)1

8,039,131

Page views on MakingHomeAffordable.gov
(October 2011)

2,407,850

Page views on MakingHomeAffordable.gov (cumulative)

129,244,991

1

Source: Survey data provided by SPA servicers. Servicers are encouraged by HAMP to solicit information from
borrowers 60+ days delinquent, regardless of eligibility for a HAMP modification.

Note: Total reflects active trials and active permanent modifications.

A complete list of HAMP activity for all metropolitan areas is available at
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/results/MHA-Reports/

7

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Aged Trials1

200,000

190,412

The number of active trials lasting 6 months or longer is below 18,400.
165,543

Program guidance directs servicers to cancel or convert trial modifications after three
or four monthly payments, depending on circumstances.

150,000

117,574
94,269

100,000

76,502

69,418
49,229

50,000

39,753 36,184
32,017 26,362
25,390 23,552 23,014 23,061 27,345
19,793 18,359

0

May
2010

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan 2011

Feb

March

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Trials Lasting 6 Months or Longer At End of Month
1 Active

trials initiated at least six months ago. See page 9 for number of aged trials by servicer. These figures include trial modifications that have been
converted to permanent modifications or cancelled by the servicer and are pending reporting to the HAMP system of record.

8

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

HAMP Modification Activity by Servicer
As of
Sep. 30, 2011

Cumulative

As of Oct. 31, 2011

All HAMP
Trials
Started3

All HAMP
Permanent
Modifications
Started3

Trial
Modifications
Reported Since
September 2011
Report3

Active Trial
Modifications3

Active Trial
Modifications
Lasting 6
Months or
Longer4

Active
Permanent
Modifications3

41,067

37,058

29,101

1,021

3,227

237

23,823

221,612

508,498

416,925

181,284

3,475

15,043

5,569

152,220

CitiMortgage, Inc.

71,333

189,961

134,759

58,369

320

4,582

1,689

50,061

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

25,789

79,530

65,324

48,371

783

2,445

67

39,739

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA6

158,829

337,767

288,816

134,269

7,559

24,362

4,931

109,436

Litton Loan Servicing LP7

32,742

43,955

38,309

13,503

14

1,686

477

10,327

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

34,536

50,860

48,535

37,880

470

2,710

403

28,027

OneWest Bank

33,707

73,765

56,871

32,361

679

3,883

201

28,058

Select Portfolio Servicing

3,893

68,726

42,526

23,552

135

530

17

18,811

Estimated
Eligible 60+
Day Delinquent
Borrowers1

Trial Plan
Offers
Extended2

American Home Mortgage Servicing
Inc.

38,485

Bank of America, NA5

Servicer

Wells Fargo Bank, NA8

123,003

333,917

246,738

118,689

2,303

10,364

1,364

101,604

Other SPA Servicers9

93,509

220,270

220,304

115,966

2,501

7,290

1,244

96,795

Other GSE Servicers10

128,141

NA

139,292

89,731

2,185

8,938

2,160

76,563

Total

965,579

1,948,316

1,735,457

883,076

21,445

85,060

18,359

735,464

1 Estimated

eligible 60+ day delinquent borrowers as reported by servicers as
of Sep. 30, 2011, include those in conventional loans:
 in foreclosure and bankruptcy.
 with a current unpaid principal balance less than $729,750 on a one-unit
property, $934,200 on a two-unit property, $1,129,250 on a three-unit
property and $1,403,400 on a four-unit property.
 on a property that was owner-occupied at origination.
 originated on or before January 1, 2009.
Estimated eligible 60+ day delinquent borrowers exclude:
 Those in FHA and VA loans.
 Those in loans that are current or less than 60 days delinquent, which
may be eligible for HAMP if a borrower is in imminent default.
 Those borrowers with debt-to-income ratios less than 31% or a negative
NPV test.
 Owners of vacant properties or properties otherwise excluded.
 HAMP Trials and Permanent Modifications disqualified from HAMP.
 Unemployed borrowers.

Exclusions for DTI and NPV are estimated using market analytics.
2 As reported in the monthly servicer survey of large SPA servicers through
Oct. 31, 2011.
3 As reported into the HAMP system of record by servicers. Excludes FHAHAMP modifications. Subject to adjustment based on servicer
reconciliation of historic loan files. Totals reflect impact of servicing
transfers. In cases where servicing transfers exceed new trial
modifications reported, negative numbers are not presented. Servicers
may enter new trial modifications into the HAMP system of record at any
time.
4 These figures include trial modifications that have been converted to
permanent modifications or cancelled by the servicer and are pending
reporting to the HAMP system of record.
5 Bank of America, NA includes all loans previously reported under BAC
Home Loans Servicing LP, Home Loan Services and Wilshire Credit
Corporation.
6 JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under

EMC Mortgage Corporation.
Due to the acquisition of Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton) by Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (Ocwen), Litton’s portfolio is being transferred to Ocwen.
As a result, Litton’s August survey results for the estimated eligible 60+
Day Delinquent Borrowers are used in this month’s report. In the future,
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Litton Loan Servicing LP will be reported
on a consolidated basis.
8 Wells Fargo Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under
Wachovia Mortgage, FSB.
9 Other SPA servicers are entities excluding the 10 largest servicers, by cap
amount, that have signed participation agreements with Treasury and
Fannie Mae. A full list of participating servicers is in Appendix A1.
10 Includes servicers of loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. Includes GSE loans previously transferred from SPA
servicers.
7

9

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Making Home Affordable Programs by Servicer1

HAMP First Lien Modifications

HAMP First Lien Modifications
With Principal Reduction
Alternative (PRA)2

Second Lien
Modification
(2MP)

Home Affordable Foreclosure
Alternatives (HAFA)

Trials
Started3

Permanent
Modifications
Started3

Trials
Started3

Permanent
Modifications
Started3

Modifications
Started4

Agreements
Started5

Agreements
Completed

American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.

37,058

29,101

0

0

N/A

415

165

Bank of America, NA6

416,925

181,284

13,203

9,922

19,177

4,938

3,808

CitiMortgage, Inc.

134,759

58,369

1,949

1,370

7,161

26

19

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

65,324

48,371

835

429

2,751

1,260

754

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA7

288,816

134,269

10,401

3,862

9,350

12,575

7,230

Litton Loan Servicing LP

38,309

13,503

3,297

2,222

N/A

1,312

713

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

48,535

37,880

6,845

4,400

N/A

258

92

OneWest Bank

56,871

32,361

2,694

1,515

1,091

1,026

463

Select Portfolio Servicing

42,526

23,552

1

1

N/A

1,821

959

Wells Fargo Bank, NA8

246,738

118,689

12,658

8,459

9,222

9,039

5,238

Other Servicers

359,596

205,697

1,440

1,196

1,682

1,935

1,260

1,735,457

883,076

53,323

33,376

50,434

34,605

20,701

Servicer

Total
1

MHA Program Effective Dates:
HAMP First Lien: April 6, 2009
PRA: October 1, 2010
2MP: August 13, 2009
HAFA: April 5, 2010
2While both GSE and non-GSE loans are eligible for HAMP, at the present time due to
GSE policy, servicers can only offer PRA on non-GSE modifications under HAMP.
Servicer volume can vary based on the investor composition of the servicer’s portfolio
and respective policy with regards to PRA. See page 3 for additional servicer detail on
HAMP activity by investor type.
3
As reported into the HAMP system of record by servicers. Excludes FHA-HAMP
modifications. Subject to adjustment based on servicer reconciliation of historic loan
files. Totals reflect impact of servicing transfers. Servicers may enter new trial
modifications into the HAMP system of record at any time.
See Appendix A1 and A2 for servicer participants in Making Home Affordable programs.

4

Number of second lien modifications started is net of cancellations, which are primarily
due to servicer data corrections.
5
Servicer agreement with homeowner for terms of potential short sale, which lasts at
least 120 days; or agreement for a deed-in-lieu transaction. A short sale requires a thirdparty purchaser and cooperation of junior lienholders and mortgage insurers to
complete the transaction.
6
Bank of America, NA includes all loans previously reported under BAC Home Loans
Servicing LP, Home Loan Services and Wilshire Credit Corporation.
7
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under EMC Mortgage
Corporation.
8
Wells Fargo Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under Wachovia Mortgage,
FSB.
N/A – Servicer does not participate in the program.

10

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Length of Trial Upon Conversion1
9

The average length of the trial period for those converted to a permanent
HAMP modification has decreased from 5.3 months for trials started prior to
June 1, 2010, to 3.5 months for trials started June 1, 2010 or later.

8

7

Months

6

5

4.6

4

3.5

3.4
3

3.6

3.3

3.0

3.0

3.2

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.0

2

1

0
Am. Home Servicing

Bank of America

CitiMortgage

Trials Started Before 6/1/10

GMAC

JP Morgan Chase

Litton

Trials Started On/After 6/1/10

Ocwen

OneWest

SPS

Before 6/1/10 Average (5.3)

Wells Fargo

Other GSE servicers Other SPA Servicers

On/After 6/1/10 Average (3.5)

1 For all permanent modifications started. Note: Per program guidelines, effective June 1, 2010 all trials must be started using verified income. Prior to June 1, 2010, some servicers
initiated trials using stated income information.

11

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Conversion Rate1

Following the implementation of verified income
documentation in June 2010, rates of converting trial
modifications into permanent modifications have risen
substantially.

Of Trials Started Before 6/1/10:
42% Converted to Permanent Modification
0.3% Pending Processing or Decision
100%
88%

Of Eligible Trials Started On/After 6/1/10:
82% Converted to Permanent Modification
8.5% Pending Processing or Decision
82%

Conversion Rate

84%

79%

80%

90%

88%

81%

84%

Other GSE
Servicers

Other SPA
Servicers

79%

76%

77%

83%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Am. Home
Servicing

Bank of
America

CitiMortgage

GMAC

JPMorgan
Chase

Litton

Average of Trials Started Before 6/1/10 (42%)

Ocwen

OneWest

SPS

Wells Fargo

Average of Trials Started On/After 6/1/10 (82%)

1 Per

program guidelines, effective June 1, 2010 all trials must be started using verified income. Before June 1, 2010, some servicers initiated trials using stated income information.
Chart depicts conversion rates as measured against trials eligible to convert – those three months in trial, or four months if the borrower was at risk of imminent default at trial
modification start. Permanent modifications transferred among servicers are credited to the originating servicer. Trial modifications transferred are reflected in the current servicer’s
population.

12

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Homeowner Experience (10 Largest Servicers)
Average Speed to Answer Homeowner Calls (September)

Servicer Complaint Rate to Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline
(Program to Date, Through October)

60

Program to date, there have been 1,282,914 calls to the Homeowner’s
HOPETM Hotline regarding a specific SPA servicer, of which 6.7% included
complaints. Below shows specific complaint rates.

Average Speed to Answer Calls to
Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline for
September: 4 Seconds

50
40

11%
% of Calls for Specific
Servicer

30

Seconds

Program to Date Average: 6.7%

10%

20

9%
8%
7%
6%
5%

10

4%
3%

0
Am. Home
Servicing

Bank of
America

CitiMortgage

GMAC

JPMorgan
Chase

Litton

Ocwen

OneWest

SPS

Wells Fargo

Bank of
America

CitiMortgage

GMAC

JPMorgan
Chase

Litton

Ocwen

OneWest

SPS

Wells Fargo

29,864

6,810

3,377

17,260

1,709

2,530

274

667

11,032

Source: Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline. Numbers reflect calls that resulted in customer records.
Note: Complaint rate is the share of a specific servicer’s call volume that are complaints (e.g., for all calls about OneWest, 9.8% included
complaints.)

Source: Survey data through September 30, 2011, from servicers on call volume to loss mitigation lines;
Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline.

Servicer Time to Resolve Third-Party Escalations
(Cases Reported Feb. 1, 2011 – Oct. 31, 2011)

Call Abandon Rate (September)
12%

Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline Average Call
Abandon Rate for September: 1.1%

10%

Am. Home
Servicing

Complaints
(PTD):
2,489

60

Target: 30 Calendar Days

50
Calendar Days

8%
6%
4%

40
30
20
10

2%

0

0%
Am. Home
Servicing

Bank of
America

CitiMortgage

GMAC

JPMorgan
Chase

Litton

Ocwen

OneWest

SPS

Source: Survey data through September 30, 2011, from servicers on call volume to loss mitigation lines;
Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline.

Wells Fargo

Am. Home
Servicing

Resolved
Cases
614
Post-2/1/11

Bank of
America

8,844

CitiMortgage

1,001

GMAC

JPMorgan
Chase

571

3,675

Litton

292

Ocwen

716

OneWest

SPS

Wells Fargo

793

149

2,319

Source: MHA Support Centers. GSE and Non-GSE escalations resolved on or after Feb. 1, 2011. Investor
denial cases, cases involving bankruptcy and those that did not require servicer actions are not included in
calculation of servicer time to resolve escalations. Target of 30 calendar days, effective Feb. 1, 2011,
includes an estimated 5 days of processing by MHA Support Centers.

13

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Disposition Path
Homeowners in Canceled HAMP Trial Modifications
Survey Data Through September 2011 (10 Largest Servicers)
Homeowners Whose HAMP Trial Modification Was Canceled Who Are in the Process of:

Action
Pending1

Servicer
American Home
Mortgage Servicing Inc.

Action Not
Allowed –
Bankruptcy Borrower
in Process Current

Total
(As of
Short Sale/
Alternative Payment
Deed-in- Foreclosure Foreclosure September
2011)
Modification
Plan2 Loan Payoff
Lieu
Starts
Completions

202

73

182

2,572

49

274

311

666

125

4,454

25,785

8,533

29,809

76,324

2,532

4,325

17,682

32,868

18,101

215,959

CitiMortgage Inc.

16,774

3,639

5,532

28,823

988

1,448

1,730

9,425

2,047

70,406

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

1,763

387

1,024

5,663

164

493

1,078

1,748

1,766

14,086

JPMorgan Chase Bank
NA4

6,654

763

4,405

53,794

560

7,082

7,684

23,266

12,970

117,178

Litton Loan Servicing
LP5

554

218

606

12,157

64

194

1,189

628

1,013

16,623

Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC

634

132

458

2,998

465

38

367

2,053

641

7,786

OneWest Bank

435

601

727

10,302

153

56

1,150

3,211

3,937

20,572

Select Portfolio
Servicing

1,187

410

1,323

5,466

315

415

1,321

1,697

3,380

15,514

Wells Fargo Bank NA6

2,134

803

12,128

54,594

1,031

19,474

3,047

16,196

8,843

118,250

TOTAL
(These 10 Largest
Servicers)

56,122
9.3%

15,559
2.6%

56,194
9.4%

252,693
42.1%

6,321
1.1%

33,799
5.6%

35,559
5.9%

91,758
15.3%

52,823
8.8%

600,828
100.0%

Bank of America,

NA3

Note: Data is as reported by servicers for actions completed through September 30, 2011. Survey data is not subject to the same data quality checks as data uploaded into the HAMP system of record.
1 Trial loans that have been canceled, but no further action has yet been taken.
2 An arrangement with the borrower and servicer that does not involve a formal loan modification.
3 Bank of America, NA includes all loans previously reported under BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Home Loan Services and Wilshire Credit Corporation.
4 JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under EMC Mortgage Corporation.
5 Due to the acquisition of Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton) by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen), Litton’s portfolio is being transferred to Ocwen. As a result, Litton’s August survey results for the estimated
eligible 60+ Day Delinquent Borrowers are used in this month’s report. In the future, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Litton Loan Servicing LP will be reported on a consolidated basis.
6 Wells Fargo Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under Wachovia Mortgage, FSB.
Note: Excludes cancellations pending data corrections and loans otherwise removed from servicing portfolios.

The most common causes of
trial cancellations from all
servicers are:
• Insufficient documentation
• Trial plan payment default
• Ineligible borrower:
first lien housing expense is
already below 31% of
household income

14

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Disposition Path
Homeowners Not Accepted for HAMP Trial Modifications
Survey Data Through September 2011 (10 Largest Servicers)
Homeowners Not Accepted for a HAMP Trial Modification Who Are in the Process of:

Servicer

Action
Pending1

Action Not
Allowed –
Bankruptcy Borrower
in Process Current

Total
(As of
Short Sale/
Alternative Payment
Deed-in- Foreclosure Foreclosure September
2011)
Modification
Plan2 Loan Payoff
Lieu
Starts
Completions

American Home
Mortgage Servicing Inc.

1,897

1,310

10,986

37,639

1,250

2,281

2,195

8,147

1,370

67,075

Bank of America, NA3

56,346

17,371

114,006

98,321

10,138

8,912

40,225

90,440

40,506

476,265

CitiMortgage Inc.

22,904

9,504

20,208

24,294

4,430

16,107

1,383

6,954

7,641

113,425

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

24,274

5,746

35,644

36,906

2,319

4,619

8,624

16,577

14,188

148,897

JPMorgan Chase Bank
NA4

85,607

6,158

81,194

138,231

2,284

65,906

28,660

73,684

24,593

506,317

Litton Loan Servicing
LP5

2,995

1,256

4,057

16,407

282

857

4,537

2,860

4,438

37,689

Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC

6,396

1,494

30,805

33,004

4,792

135

426

4,537

2,190

83,779

OneWest Bank

5,314

3,039

24,718

19,690

1,471

1,578

4,543

11,856

10,502

82,711

Select Portfolio
Servicing

2,599

437

3,011

4,599

378

309

1,191

1,881

1,839

16,244

Wells Fargo Bank NA6

17,314

5,131

51,033

50,726

1,866

26,613

15,704

22,218

15,122

205,727

TOTAL
(These 10 Largest
Servicers)

225,646
13.0%

51,446
3.0%

375,662
21.6%

459,817
26.5%

29,210
1.7%

127,317
7.3%

107,488
6.2%

239,154
13.8%

122,389
7.0%

1,738,129
100.0%

The most common causes of
trials not accepted from all
servicers are:
• Insufficient documentation
• Ineligible borrower:
first lien housing expense is
already below 31% of
household income
• Ineligible mortgage

Note: Data is as reported by servicers for actions completed through September 30, 2011. Survey data is not subject to the same data quality checks as data uploaded into the HAMP system of record.
1 Homeowners who were not approved for a HAMP trial modification, but no further action has yet been taken.
2 An arrangement with the borrower and servicer that does not involve a formal loan modification.
3 Bank of America, NA includes all loans previously reported under BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Home Loan Services and Wilshire Credit Corporation.
4 JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under EMC Mortgage Corporation.
5 Due to the acquisition of Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton) by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen), Litton’s portfolio is being transferred to Ocwen. As a result, Litton’s August survey results for the estimated eligible
60+ Day Delinquent Borrowers are used in this month’s report. In the future, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Litton Loan Servicing LP will be reported on a consolidated basis.
6 Wells Fargo Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under Wachovia Mortgage, FSB.
Note: Excludes loans removed from servicing portfolios.

15

MHA Servicer Assessment
Overview

Background
Since the Making Home Affordable Program’s (MHA) inception in the spring
of 2009, Treasury has monitored the performance of participating mortgage
servicers. Treasury has been publicly reporting information about servicer
performance through two types of data: compliance data, which reflects
servicer compliance with specific MHA guidelines; and program results data,
which reflects how timely and effectively servicers assist eligible
homeowners and report program activity.
When MHA began, most servicers did not have the staff, procedures, or
systems in place to respond to the volume of homeowners struggling to pay
their mortgages, or to respond to the housing crisis generally. Very few
mortgage modifications were even occurring. Treasury sought to get
servicers to join MHA and to improve their operations quickly, so as to
implement a national mortgage modification program.
Through ongoing compliance reviews, Treasury has required participating
servicers to take specific actions to improve their servicing processes. While
the servicers have improved their performance, they still have more progress
to make. Toward that end, Treasury is publishing servicer assessments for
each of the 10 largest servicers participating in MHA. Not only will the
assessments provide more transparency to the public about servicer
performance in the program, but the assessments are also intended to
encourage servicers to correct identified instances of non-compliance.
Servicer participation in MHA is voluntary, based on a contract with Fannie
Mae as financial agent on behalf of Treasury. Although Treasury does not
regulate these institutions and does not have the authority to impose fines
or penalties, Treasury can, pursuant to the contract, take certain remedial
actions against servicers not in compliance with MHA guidelines. Such
remedial actions include requiring servicers to correct identified instances of
non-compliance, as noted above. In addition, Treasury can implement
financial remedies such as withholding incentive payments owed to
servicers. Such incentive payments, which are the only payments Treasury
makes for the benefit of servicers under the program, include payments for

every successful permanent modification under the Home Affordable
Modification Program, and payments for completed short sale/deed-in-lieu
transactions pursuant to the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternative
Program.
It is important to note that Treasury’s compliance work related to MHA
applies only to those servicers that have agreed to participate in MHA for
mortgage loans that are not owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie
Mac (Government Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs). Treasury cannot and
does not perform compliance reviews of (1) mortgage loans or activities that
fall outside of MHA, (2) GSE loans or (3) those loans insured through the
Federal Housing Administration. For each servicer, the loans that are eligible
for MHA represent only a portion of that servicer’s overall mortgage
servicing operation.
Treasury’s foremost goal is to assist struggling homeowners who may be
eligible for MHA. These servicer assessments set a new benchmark for
providing detailed information about how mortgage servicers are performing
against key metrics. But, in addition to this direct effect, MHA has had an
important indirect effect on the market as well. MHA has established
standards that have improved mortgage modifications across the industry,
and has led to important changes in the way mortgage servicers assist
struggling homeowners generally. These changes include standards for how
mortgage modifications should be designed so that they are sustainable,
standards for communications with homeowners so that the process is as
efficient and as understandable as possible, and a variety of standards for
protecting homeowners, such as prohibitions on “dual tracking” –
simultaneously evaluating a homeowner for a modification while proceeding
to foreclose. Going forward, Treasury hopes these assessments will also set
the standard for transparency about mortgage servicer efforts to assist
homeowners.
Below are general descriptions of the data, the evaluation process, and the
consequences for servicers needing improvement.
(Continued on next page)

16

MHA Servicer Assessment
Overview

The Performance Data: Compliance and Program Results
Freddie Mac, acting as Treasury’s compliance agent for MHA, has created a
separate division known as Making Home Affordable–Compliance (MHA-C) to
evaluate servicer performance through reviews of program compliance. MHAC tests and evaluates a range of servicer activities for compliance with MHA
guidelines. Once MHA-C’s reviews are complete, MHA-C shares its results with
the servicers and identifies areas that need remediation. Each compliance
activity tested falls into one of three overall compliance categories – Identifying
and Contacting Homeowners, Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance, and
Program Management, Reporting and Governance. The compliance results
shared with the servicers are then used to generate the servicer assessments.
The assessments highlight particular compliance activities tested by MHA-C
that had significant impact on homeowners and include for those highlighted
activities a one-star, two-star, or three-star rating for the most recent
evaluations. One star means the servicer did not meet Treasury’s benchmark
required for that particular activity, and the servicer needs substantial
improvement in its performance of that activity. Two stars mean the servicer
did not meet Treasury’s benchmark required for that particular activity, and the
servicer needs moderate improvement in its performance of that activity.
Three stars mean the servicer met Treasury’s benchmark required for that
particular activity, but the servicer may nonetheless need minor improvement
in its performance of that activity.
Although the compliance reviews emphasize objective measurements and
observed facts, compliance reviews still involve a certain level of judgment.
Compliance reviews are also retrospective in nature – looking backward, not
forward, which means that activities identified as needing improvement in a
given quarter may already be under remediation by the servicer. In addition,
not every compliance activity is evaluated every quarter, which means that a
rating from one quarter might carry forward to the subsequent quarter’s
assessment if that activity was not retested in that subsequent quarter. Finally,
the compliance reviews use “sampling” as a testing methodology. Sampling, an
industry-accepted auditing technique, looks at a subset of a particular
population of activity transactions, rather than the entirety of the population of
activity transactions, to extrapolate a servicer’s overall performance in that
particular activity.
In addition to the ratings for compliance data, the assessments also include

program results metrics. Fannie Mae, acting as Treasury’s program
administrator for MHA, collects servicer data used to measure program results.
These metrics are key indicators of how timely and effectively servicers assist
eligible homeowners under MHA guidelines and report program data.
Although the servicers are not given an overall rating for this data, the results
metrics nonetheless compare a servicer’s performance for a given quarter
against the “best” and “worst” performing servicer of the 10 largest servicers
participating in the program. The results metrics provide a snapshot of how
each of those servicers compares in specific areas under MHA.

The Determination Process: Results of the Data
Treasury reviews the compliance data and ratings, the program results metrics,
and other relevant factors affecting servicer performance (including, but not
limited to, a servicer’s progress in implementing previously identified
improvements) in determining whether a servicer needs substantial
improvement, moderate improvement, or minor improvement to its
performance under MHA guidelines. The assessments summarize the
significant factors impacting those decisions. Based on those assessments,
Treasury may take remedial action against servicers. Page 18 summarizes the
overall level of improvement needed for each servicer.

Consequences for Servicers
For servicers in need of substantial improvement, Treasury will, absent
extenuating circumstances, withhold financial incentives owed to those
servicers until they make certain identified improvements. In certain cases,
particularly where there is a failure to correct identified problems within a
reasonable time, Treasury may also permanently reduce the financial
incentives. Servicers in need of moderate improvement may be subject to
withholding in the future if they fail to make certain identified improvements.
All withholdings apply only to incentives owed to servicers for their
participation in MHA; these withholdings do not apply to incentives paid to
servicers for the benefit of homeowners or investors.

Additional Information
See the “Metrics Description” on page 39 for a description of each of the
compliance and results metrics presented in the assessments. For more
information on the assessments, please visit: www.FinancialStability.gov.

17

MHA Servicer Assessment
Overview

3rd Quarter 2011 Servicer Assessment Results
The following table details the results of the Servicer Assessments, based on compliance and program results:

Improvement Needed

Servicer Name

Substantial

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA

Moderate

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
Bank of America, NA
CitiMortgage, Inc.
GMAC Mortgage, LLC
1
Litton Loan Servicing, LP
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Minor

OneWest Bank
Select Portfolio Servicing

After evaluating the Third Quarter 2011 MHA Servicer Assessments, Treasury will continue to withhold servicer incentives owed to JPMorgan Chase
Bank, NA, which requires substantial improvement due to their lack of progress in implementing previously identified improvements.
With the exception of Bank of America, NA, Treasury is not withholding servicer incentives for servicers requiring moderate improvement for this
quarter. However, those servicers that fail to improve in those areas identified may be subject to servicer incentive withholding in the future, and
Treasury will continue to withhold servicer incentives from Bank of America, NA, until it makes additional improvements.
Two servicers have been identified as needing minor improvement for this quarter.
Please refer to the following MHA Servicer Assessment pages for further detail on the Third Quarter 2011 servicer assessment results.
1Effective

November 1, 2011 Litton Loan Servicing, LP transferred its loan portfolio to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.

18

MHA Servicer Assessment: American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination







Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Rating Legend



0.0%



< 10%

0.0%





-



< 5%

2.0%





-



< 5%

6.8%





-



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Benchmark

Result

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed



American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed



After considering all relevant factors, American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. servicer incentives
will not be withheld at this time.

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

19

MHA Servicer Assessment: American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance
American Home
Mortgage
Servicing Inc.

19%

8%

27%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance
American Home
Mortgage
Servicing Inc.

0%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

30

40

40%

60%

50

March 2011
June 2011
Sep. 2011

72%

80%

100%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

20

20%

Results as of:

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

American Home
Mortgage
Servicing Inc.

28

10

54%
62%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

0

78%
85%
86%

American Home
Mortgage
Servicing Inc.

29%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

84%
88%
90%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

20

MHA Servicer Assessment: Bank of America, NA
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination





Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Rating Legend



1.0%



< 10%

1.5%





-



< 5%

6.0%





-



< 5%

1.1%





-



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Benchmark

Result

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed



Bank of America, NA has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed



After considering all relevant factors, Bank of America, NA servicer incentives will
continue to be withheld at this time.

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

21

MHA Servicer Assessment: Bank of America, NA
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

22%

Bank of
America, NA

26%

35%

29%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1
Best
Servicer
Performance

Bank of
America, NA

32

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

10

54%
62%

Bank of
America, NA

54%
62%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

20

30

40

50

20%

40%

60%

Results as of:
March 2011
June 2011
Sep. 2011

76%

72%

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

0

84%
88%
90%

Best
Servicer
Performance

Bank of
America, NA

3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

3.9%
3.4%
3.6%
0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

22

MHA Servicer Assessment: CitiMortgage, Inc.
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination







Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Rating Legend



1.5%



< 10%

0.5%





-



< 5%

6.0%





-



< 5%

8.4%





-



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Benchmark

Result

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed



CitiMortgage, Inc. has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed



After considering all relevant factors,CitiMortgage, Inc. servicer incentives will not
be withheld at this time.

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

23

MHA Servicer Assessment: CitiMortgage, Inc.
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

29%

CitiMortgage, Inc.

29%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance

28

CitiMortgage, Inc.

Worst
Servicer
Performance

54%
62%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

20

30

40

20%

40%

60%

March 2011
June 2011
Sep. 2011

72%

80%

100%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.9%

2.3%
3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

50

Results as of:

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

CitiMortgage, Inc.

39

10

73%
75%
81%

CitiMortgage, Inc.

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

0

84%
88%
90%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

24

MHA Servicer Assessment: GMAC Mortgage, LLC
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination







Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



1.0%



< 10%

0.0%





-



< 5%

4.2%

1



-



< 5%

2.9%

1



-



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Benchmark

Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

1 - Rating carried forward from prior quarter.

Rating Legend



Result

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed



GMAC Mortgage, LLC has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed



After considering all relevant factors, GMAC Mortgage, LLC servicer incentives will
not be withheld at this time.

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

25

MHA Servicer Assessment: GMAC Mortgage, LLC
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
Best
Servicer
Performance

2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

2%
1%
2%

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

29%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

10%

20%

34%
35%

30%

40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance

12

10

0%

20

30

40

20%

40%

60%

50

June 2011
Sep. 2011

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%

1.4%

3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

March 2011

54%
62%
72%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0

79%
80%
84%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

84%
88%
90%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

26

MHA Servicer Assessment: JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination







Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Rating Legend





< 10%

0.9%





-



< 5%

6.0%





-



< 5%

5.7%





-



Result

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed



Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed



 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

0.0%

Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Benchmark

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA has areas requiring substantial improvement due to their
lack of progress in implementing previously identified improvements.
After considering all relevant factors, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA servicer incentives
will continue to be withheld at this time.

27

MHA Servicer Assessment: JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9%

JPMorgan
Chase Bank, NA

17%

29%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance

54%
62%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

JPMorgan
Chase Bank, NA

39

JPMorgan
Chase Bank, NA

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0

10

20

30

40

50

40%

60%

June 2011

72%

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

20%

March 2011
Sep. 2011

57%
66%
72%

JPMorgan
Chase Bank, NA

23%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

84%
88%
90%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0.7%
0.5%
0.2%
3.9%
3.4%
3.6%
0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

28

MHA Servicer Assessment: Litton Loan Servicing, LP
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination







Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Rating Legend



1.0%



< 10%

2.0%





-



< 5%

1.0%





-



< 5%

1.9%





-



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Benchmark

Result

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed



Litton Loan Servicing, LP has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed



After considering all relevant factors,Litton Loan Servicing, LP servicer incentives will
not be withheld at this time.

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

Note: Effective November 1, 2011 Litton Loan Servicing, LP transferred its loan portfolio to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.

29

MHA Servicer Assessment: Litton Loan Servicing, LP
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

11%
10%

Litton Loan
Servicing, LP

29%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance

Worst
Servicer
Performance

20

30

40

40%

60%

50

72%

80%

100%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.6%
0.7%
3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

10

20%

June 2011

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

Litton Loan
Servicing, LP

18

0

0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

Litton Loan
Servicing, LP

54%
62%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

March 2011
Sep. 2011

74%
72%
81%

Litton Loan
Servicing, LP

18%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

84%
88%
90%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

30

MHA Servicer Assessment: Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination







Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Rating Legend



0.0%



< 10%

2.4%





-



< 5%

2.0%





-



< 5%

2.3%





-



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Benchmark

Result

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed



Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed



After considering all relevant factors, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC servicer incentives
will not be withheld at this time.

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

31

MHA Servicer Assessment: Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

13%

20%
18%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance

Worst
Servicer
Performance

20

30

40

40%

60%

50

72%

80%

100%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

10

20%

June 2011

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

11

0

0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

54%
62%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

March 2011
Sep. 2011

76%
79%
82%

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

29%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

84%
88%
90%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

32

MHA Servicer Assessment: OneWest Bank
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Benchmark

Servicer Result

Rating

< 4%

0.0%



< 10%

0.0%





-



< 5%

2.0%

1



-



< 5%

1.8%

1



-



Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination



Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines





Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

1 - Rating carried forward from prior quarter.

Rating Legend



Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed

Result


OneWest Bank has areas requiring minor improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

33

MHA Servicer Assessment: OneWest Bank
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

6%
5%

OneWest Bank

14%

29%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance

19

20

30

40

20%

40%

60%

50

June 2011

72%

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

10

0%

OneWest Bank

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0

54%
62%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

OneWest Bank

79%
77%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

March 2011
Sep. 2011

67%

OneWest Bank

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

84%
88%
90%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

34

MHA Servicer Assessment: Select Portfolio Servicing
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination







Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Rating Legend



Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed

0.8%



< 10%

0.8%





-



< 5%

3.2%





-



< 5%

2.3%





-



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Benchmark

Result


Select Portfolio Servicing has areas requiring minor improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

35

MHA Servicer Assessment: Select Portfolio Servicing
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

Select Portfolio
Servicing

10%

5%
5%

29%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance

84%
88%
90%

March 2011

Select Portfolio
Servicing

84%
88%
90%

Sep. 2011

54%
62%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

9

Best
Servicer
Performance

Select Portfolio
Servicing

9

Select Portfolio
Servicing

10

20

30

40

60%

50

80%

100%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

0

40%

72%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

Best
Servicer
Performance

Worst
Servicer
Performance

20%

June 2011

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

36

MHA Servicer Assessment: Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Compliance Results

Overview


These metrics reflect the results of compliance reviews of the servicer's adherence to MHA Program Requirements.



Quantitative results reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome.



Servicers are rated qualitatively on the effectiveness of their internal control in the three Performance Categories as well as for each quantitative result.

Third Quarter 2011
Performance Category



Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Metric


Second Look % Disagree
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the
servicer's MHA determination

Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates
appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners.


Second Look % Unable to Determine
Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on
the servicer's MHA determination







Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners'
eligibility for MHA programs, communicates decisions in a
timely manner, and accurately executes appropriate MHA
activities.

Program Management, Reporting, and Governance
Assesses whether the servicer has effective program
management, governance processes, and timely and correct
submission of program reports and program information.



Internal Controls for Program Management, Reporting, and
Governance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Rating Legend



0.4%



< 10%

1.3%





-



< 5%

5.5%





-



< 5%

1.9%





-



Incentive Payment Data Errors
Average percentage of difference in calculated incentives resulting from data
discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record



< 4%

Internal Controls for Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines



Rating

Income Calculation Error %
Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from
the servicer's by more than 5%



Servicer Result

Internal Controls for Identifying and Contacting Homeowners
MHA-C assesses whether servicer business processes are conducted
effectively and in accordance with MHA guidelines

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Benchmark

Result

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed



Wells Fargo Bank, NA has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed



After considering all relevant factors,Wells Fargo Bank, NA servicer incentives will
not be withheld at this time.

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

37

MHA Servicer Assessment: Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Program Results

Conversion Rate for Trials Started
On or After 6/1/2010

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
2%
1%
2%

Best
Servicer
Performance

11%
11%
12%

Wells Fargo
Bank, NA

29%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

10%

20%

30%

34%
35%
40%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases1

Best
Servicer
Performance

Wells Fargo
Bank, NA

Wells Fargo
Bank, NA

75%
84%
88%
54%
62%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

30

40

40%

60%

50

June 2011
Sep. 2011

72%

80%

100%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.5%

1.3%

3.9%
3.4%
3.6%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

39

20

20%

March 2011

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

Wells Fargo
Bank, NA

25

10

84%
88%
90%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9

0

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest 10 servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1The population in Q3 2011 only includes non-GSE cases resolved after 2/1/2011.

38

MHA Servicer Assessment
Metrics Descriptions

Appendix

conducting staff training on income calculation.

Incentive Payment Data Errors: Treasury pays
incentives to servicers, investors, and homeowners
Second Look % Disagree: Second Look is a process in for permanent modifications completed under MHA.
which MHA-C reviews loans not in a permanent
Although intended for different recipients, all
modification, to assess the accuracy of the servicer’s incentives are paid through the servicer. Data that
determination of whether the homeowner is eligible servicers upload to the program system of record is
for a modification. This metric measures the
used to calculate the incentives paid to servicers,
percentage of loans reviewed in Second Look with
investors, and homeowners. This metric measures
which MHA-C disagrees with a servicer’s
how data anomalies between servicer loan files and
determination.
the reported information affect incentive payments.
For Incentive Payment Data Error results, remedial
Second Look % Unable to Determine: This metric
actions Treasury requires servicers to take include,
measures the percentage of loans reviewed in Second
but are not limited to: correcting the identified errors
Look for which MHA-C is not able to determine, based
and correcting system and operational processes such
on the documentation provided, how the servicer
that accurate data is mapped to its appropriate places
reached its loan-modification decision.
in the program system of record.
For both Second Look Disagree and Unable to
Determine results, remedial actions Treasury requires Compliance Metrics (qualitative)
servicers to take include, but are not limited to:
Servicers establish processes and internal controls to
reevaluating loans not offered HAMP modifications, help ensure their compliance with Program guidance.
submitting additional documentation to support the For each of the performance categories, Treasury
initial reason for denial of the modification, clarifying performs a qualitative assessment of those internal
loan status, and engaging in systemic process
controls based on MHA-C’s compliance reviews. That
remediation. For such results, servicers are also
assessment evaluates the nature, scope, and
reminded of their obligation to suspend foreclosure of potential or actual impact on homeowners resulting
the loan until the unresolved items are remediated.
from instances of servicer non-compliance with its
own internal controls. For ineffective internal
Income Calculation Errors: Correctly calculating
homeowner monthly income is a critical component controls, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers
to take include, but are not limited to: identifying and
of evaluating eligibility for MHA, as well as
establishing an accurate modification payment. This reevaluating any affected loans, enhancing the
metric measures how often MHA-C disagrees with a effectiveness of internal controls, and conducting
servicer’s calculation of a borrower’s Monthly Gross staff training on servicer procedures.

Compliance Metrics (quantitative)

Income, allowing for up to a 5% differential from
MHA-C’s calculations. For Income Calculation Error
results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers
to take include, but are not limited to: correcting
income errors exceeding the 5% differential, requiring
the servicer to review their own income calculation
accuracy, enhancing policies and procedures, and

Program Metrics
Conversion Rate: This cumulative metric looks at the
rate of conversion to permanent modification for
trials started on or after June 1, 2010, when all
servicers were required to verify income
documentation at trial start. Conversion rate is

measured against all trials eligible to convert – those
three months in trial, or four months if the borrower
was at risk of imminent default at trial modification
start. Permanent modifications transferred among
servicers are credited to the originating servicer; trial
modifications transferred are reflected in the current
servicer’s population.
Aged Trials as % of Active Trials: This monthly metric
measures trials lasting six months or longer as a share
of all active trials. These figures include trial
modifications that have been converted to
permanent modifications by the servicer and are
pending reporting to the program system of record,
plus some portion which may be canceled.
Days to Resolve Escalated Cases: This cumulative
metric measures servicer response time for
homeowner inquiries escalated to MHA Support
Centers. Effective Feb. 1, 2011, a target of 30
calendar days was established for non-GSE escalation
cases, including an estimated 5 days processing by the
MHA Support Centers. The methodology for
calculating average days to respond to escalated
cases was recently updated and the Q3 2011 figures
reflect non-GSE cases escalated on or after 2/1/2011.
Investor denial cases, cases involving bankruptcy, and
those cases that did not require servicer actions are
not included in the calculation of servicer time to
resolve escalations.
% of Missing Modification Status Reports: This
monthly metric measures the servicer’s ability to
promptly report on modification status. Inconsistent
and untimely reporting of modification status reports
may impact incentive compensation and loan
performance analysis.
For more information on the assessments, please
visit: www.FinancialStability.gov.

39

Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Appendix A1: Non-GSE Participants in HAMP
Servicers participating in the HAMP First Lien Modification Program may also offer additional support for homeowners, including Home Affordable Foreclosure
Alternatives (HAFA), a forbearance for unemployed borrowers through the Unemployment Program (UP), and Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA).
Effective October 3, 2010, the ability to make new financial commitments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) terminated, and consequently no
new Servicer Participation Agreements may be executed. In addition, effective June 25, 2010, no new housing programs may be created under TARP.
Allstate Mortgage Loans &
Investments, Inc.
American Eagle Federal Credit Union
American Home Mortgage Servicing,
Inc
AMS Servicing, LLC
Aurora Loan Services, LLC
Bank of America, N.A.1
Bank United
Bay Federal Credit Union
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC
CCO Mortgage
Central Florida Educators Federal
Credit Union
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Citizens 1st National Bank
Community Bank & Trust Company
Community Credit Union of Florida
CUC Mortgage Corporation
DuPage Credit Union
Fay Servicing, LLC
Fidelity Homestead Savings Bank
First Bank
First Financial Bank, N.A.

Franklin Credit Management
Corporation
Franklin Savings
Fresno County Federal Credit Union
Glass City Federal Credit Union
GMAC Mortgage, LLC
Grafton Suburban Credit Union
Great Lakes Credit Union
Greater Nevada Mortgage Services
Green Tree Servicing LLC
Hartford Savings Bank
Hillsdale County National Bank
HomEq Servicing
HomeStar Bank & Financial Services
Horicon Bank
Horizon Bank, NA
IBM Southeast Employees' Federal
Credit Union
IC Federal Credit Union
Idaho Housing and Finance Association
iServe Residential Lending LLC
iServe Servicing Inc.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA2
Lake City Bank
Lake National Bank

Liberty Bank and Trust Co.
Litton Loan Servicing
Los Alamos National Bank
Magna Bank
Marix Servicing, LLC
Midland Mortgage Company
Midwest Community Bank
Mission Federal Credit Union
Mortgage Center, LLC
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
Navy Federal Credit Union
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
OneWest Bank
ORNL Federal Credit Union
Park View Federal Savings Bank
Pathfinder Bank
PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
PNC Bank, National Association
PNC Mortgage3
Purdue Employees Federal Credit
Union
QLending, Inc.
Quantum Servicing Corporation
Residential Credit Solutions
RG Mortgage Corporation

RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing
Corporation
Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.
Schools Financial Credit Union
SEFCU
Select Portfolio Servicing
Servis One Inc., dba BSI Financial
Services, Inc.
ShoreBank
Silver State Schools Credit Union
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
Sterling Savings Bank
Suburban Mortgage Company of New
Mexico
Technology Credit Union
The Golden 1 Credit Union
U.S. Bank National Association
United Bank
United Bank Mortgage Corporation
Vantium Capital, Inc.
Vist Financial Corp.
Wealthbridge Mortgage Corp.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA4
Yadkin Valley Bank

1

Bank of America, NA includes all loans previously reported under BAC Home
Loans Servicing LP, Home Loan Services and Wilshire Credit Corporation.
2 JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under EMC
Mortgage Corporation.
3 Formerly National City Bank.
4 Wells Fargo Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under Wachovia
Mortgage, FSB.

40

Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Through October 2011

Appendix A2: Participants in Additional Making Home Affordable Programs
Second Lien Modification Program (2MP)
Bank of America, NA1
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Community Credit Union of Florida
GMAC Mortgage, LLC
Green Tree Servicing LLC
iServe Residential Lending, LLC
iServe Servicing, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA2
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
OneWest Bank
PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
PNC Bank, National Association
PNC Mortgage 3
Residential Credit Solutions
Servis One Inc., dba BSI Financial Services, Inc.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA 4

FHA First Lien Program (Treasury FHA-HAMP)
Amarillo National Bank
American Financial Resources Inc.
Aurora Financial Group, Inc.
Aurora Loan Services, LLC
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
Bank of America, NA1
Capital International Financial, Inc.
CitiMortgage, Inc.
CU Mortgage Services, Inc.
First Federal Bank of Florida
First Mortgage Corporation

Franklin Savings
Gateway Mortgage Group, LLC
GMAC Mortgage, LLC.
Green Tree Servicing LLC
Guaranty Bank
iServe Residential Lending, LLC
iServe Servicing, Inc.
James B. Nutter & Company
JPMorgan Chase Bank,NA2
M&T Bank
Marix Servicing, LLC
Marsh Associates, Inc.
Midland Mortgage Company
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
PNC Mortgage 3
RBC Bank (USA)
Residential Credit Solutions
Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.
Schmidt Mortgage Company
Select Portfolio Servicing
Servis One Inc., dba BSI Financial Services, Inc.
Stockman Bank of Montana
Wells Fargo Bank, NA 4
Weststar Mortgage, Inc.

FHA Second Lien Program (FHA 2LP)
Bank of America, NA1
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Flagstar Capital Markets Corporation
GMAC Mortgage, LLC.
Green Tree Servicing LLC
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA2
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
PNC Bank, National Association
PNC Mortgage 3
Residential Credit Solutions
Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.
Select Portfolio Servicing
Wells Fargo Bank, NA 4

Rural Housing Service Modification Program
(RD-HAMP)
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
Bank of America, N.A. 1
Horicon Bank
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA 2
Magna Bank
Marix Servicing, LLC
Midland Mortgage Company
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
Wells Fargo Bank, NA 4

1 Bank of America, NA includes all loans previously reported under BAC Home Loans Servicing
LP, Home Loan Services and Wilshire Credit Corporation.
2 JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under EMC Mortgage
Corporation.
3 Formerly National City Bank.
4 Wells Fargo Bank, NA includes all loans previously reported under Wachovia Mortgage FSB.

41