Full text of HAMP Performance Summary : Making Home Affordable Program : Program Performance Report, Through July 2013

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

Making Home Affordable
Report Highlights

Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Over 1.7 Million Homeowner Assistance Actions Taken through Making Home
Affordable
• Over 1.2 million homeowners have received a permanent modification through the Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP). Homeowners have reduced their first lien mortgage payments by a
median of approximately $547 each month – almost 40% of their median before-modification
payment – saving a total estimated $21.6 billion to date in monthly mortgage payments.
• Homeowners currently in HAMP permanent modifications with some form of principal reduction
have been granted an estimated $11.1 billion in principal reduction. Of all non-GSE loans eligible for
principal reduction entering HAMP in July, 73% included a principal reduction feature.
• Nearly 200,000 homeowners have exited their homes through a short sale or deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure with assistance from the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA).
• Over 115,000 second lien modifications have been completed through the Second Lien Modification
Program (2MP).

This Month: Q2 2013 Servicer Assessment Results
• For the second quarter of 2013, all servicers were found to need moderate improvement. All
servicers will need to continue to demonstrate progress in areas identified in program reviews.
• Servicers continue to focus attention on areas identified in previous program reviews and, as a result,
have demonstrated improvement in program implementation:
• Mortgage servicers continue to appropriately calculate homeowner income, which is used to
determine a homeowner’s eligibility and modified payment amount under the program. In Q2
2013, the average income calculation error rate for the top servicers was below 2 percent.
• Servicers have more effectively evaluated homeowners under program eligibility criteria as
evidenced in the “second look disagree” category, which reflects the rate at which Treasury’s
program reviews disagree with the servicer’s decision not to assist a homeowner. In Q2 2013, the
average second look disagree percentage for the top servicers was less than 2 percent.

Note: For information and quarterly updates about the Hardest Hit Fund, please visit the website for the Hardest
Hit Fund or the TARP Monthly Report to Congress.

Inside:
SUMMARY RESULTS:
2
Making Home Affordable Program Activity
3
First Lien Modification Activity
Activity for HAFA, 2MP, Treasury FHA-HAMP 4
and UP
Principal Reduction Activity
5-6
First Lien Modification Characteristics
7
HAMP Activity by State
8
HAMP Activity by MSA
9

SERVICER RESULTS:
10
First Lien Modification Activity
11
First Lien, PRA, 2MP, and HAFA Activity
12
Outreach to 60+ Delinquent Homeowners
13
Average Delinquency at Trial Start
14
Conversion Rate
15
Time to Resolve Escalations/Homeowner
Outreach
Disposition of Homeowners Not in
16-18
HAMP
SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS:
Overview
Servicer Results
Description of Metrics

19-25
26-39
40

APPENDICES:
Participants in MHA Programs

41-42

Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Making Home Affordable Program Activity
The Making Home Affordable Program was launched in March 2009 with the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) which provides assistance to struggling homeowners
by lowering monthly first lien mortgage payments to an affordable level. Additional programs were subsequently rolled out to expand the program reach.

In total, the MHA program has completed more than 1.7 million first and second lien permanent modifications, HAFA transactions, and UP forbearance plans.

Program-to-Date

Reported Since Prior
Period

1,395,755

20,643

2MP Modifications Started

115,242

1,917

HAFA Transactions Completed2

194,147

13,163

UP Forbearance Plans Started (through
June 2013)

34,469

642

1,739,613

36,365

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications
Started1

Cumulative Activity3

MHA Program Activity

Cumulative MHA Activity (000s)

Cumulative Transactions Completed
1,800
1,600
1,434

1,400
1,219

1,244

1,277

1,299

1,475

1,515

1,550

1,588

1,624

1,665

1,703

Program

Purpose

MHA First Lien
Modifications

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) provides
eligible borrowers the opportunity to lower their first lien
mortgage payment to affordable and sustainable levels through a
uniform loan modification process. Effective June 2012, HAMP's
eligibility requirements were expanded to include a "Tier 2"
evaluation for non-GSE loans that is modeled after the GSE
Standard Modification and includes properties that are currently
occupied by a tenant as well as vacant properties the borrower
intends to rent. FHA-HAMP and RD-HAMP provide first lien
modifications for distressed borrowers in loans guaranteed
through the Federal Housing Administration and Rural Housing
Service.

Second Lien Modification
Program (2MP)

Provides modifications and extinguishments on second liens when
there has been a first lien HAMP modification on the same
property.

Home Affordable
Foreclosure Alternatives
(HAFA)

Provides transition alternatives to foreclosure in the form of a
short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. Effective November
2012, the GSEs jointly streamlined their short sale and deed-in-lieu
of foreclosure programs. The GSE Standard HAFA program is
closely aligned with Treasury’s MHA HAFA program.

Unemployment Program
(UP)

Provides temporary forbearance of mortgage principal to enable
unemployed borrowers to look for a new job without fear of
foreclosure.

1,740

1,324

1,200
1,000
800
June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
2012
2013

Source: HAMP system of record for HAMP, 2MP, HAFA, FHA-HAMP, and RD-HAMP. UP participation is reported via servicer survey
through June 2013. GSE Standard Modification and GSE Standard HAFA data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of July
2013.

1 Includes (a) 1,236,682 GSE and Non-GSE HAMP permanent modifications, (b) 15,843 FHA- and RD-HAMP
modifications, and (c) 143,230 GSE Standard Modifications since October 2011 under the GSEs’ Servicer
Alignment Initiative. The GSEs and other government agencies also undertake other foreclosure prevention
activities beyond their participation in MHA which is not reflected in this report. Per the Federal Housing Finance
Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report for the First Quarter of 2013, since 4Q 2008, the GSEs have completed
nearly 1.4 million permanent modifications and over 475,000 short sales and deed-in-lieu of foreclosure actions,
which includes their activity under MHA. Please visit www.FHFA.gov for the complete FHFA report. As reported
in the August 2013 edition of the Obama Administration’s Housing Scorecard, FHA has offered over 1.9 million
loss mitigation and early delinquency interventions through July 31, 2013 since April 1, 2009, which includes their
activity under MHA.
2 Includes the GSE and Non-GSE activity under the MHA program, in addition to the cumulative GSE Standard
HAFA transactions completed since November 2012. Does not include other GSE short sale and deed-in-lieu
activity prior to November 2012 outside the GSE Standard HAFA program.
3 This does not include trial modifications that have cancelled or not yet converted to permanent modifications,
or HAFA transactions started but not yet completed.

2

Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Through July 2013

HAMP (First Lien) Modifications

Trial
Modifications

Tier 1

2,052,705

Tier 2

30,415

Trials Reported Since June 2013 Report1

15,830

Trial Modifications Canceled Since June 1, 20102

72,449

Active Trials

69,125

All Permanent Modifications Started

Permanent
Modifications

HAMP Trials Started

2,083,120

1,236,682

Tier 1

1,225,028

Tier 2

11,654

Permanent Modifications Reported Since
June 2013 Report

13,183

Permanent Modifications Disqualified (Cumulative)3

325,491

Active Permanent Modifications

892,897

Servicers may enter new trial modifications into the HAMP system of record at any time.
777,313 cumulative including 704,864 that had trial start dates prior to June 1, 2010 when Treasury implemented a verified
income requirement.
3 A permanent modification disqualifies when the borrower has missed three consecutive monthly payments. Does not include
18,294 loans paid off.

Cumulative Trial Starts (Left Axis)

2,100

Monthly Trial Starts (Right Axis)

2,050

2,036

2,000
1,950
1,900
1,850
1,800

1,806

1,827

1,845

1,863

1,881

1,896

1,914

1,928

1,946

1,962

1,976

1,988

2,002

2,054

2,069

2,083

2,019

50

1,750
1,700
1,650

1
2

100

2,150

New Trials Started (000s)

All Trials Started

Total

All Trials Started (000s)

HAMP Activity Through July 2013

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep
2012

Oct Nov Dec

Jan Feb
2013

Mar Apr May June July

0

Servicers may enter new trial modifications into the HAMP system of record at any time. For example, 15,830 trials have entered the
HAMP system of record since the prior report; 13,949 were trials with a first payment recorded in July 2013.

HAMP Permanent Modifications Started (Cumulative)
Under the original HAMP program, launched in March 2009, now referred to as “Tier 1,” eligible loans include
conventional loans more than 60 days delinquent (unless the borrower is in imminent default), that originated on
or before January 1, 2009 with a current unpaid principal balance below the maximum conforming loan limit4
and were owner-occupied at origination.
Homeowners who have HAMP-eligible loans may qualify for Tier 1 if they meet additional criteria including, but
not limited to requiring: a debt-to-income ratio greater than 31%, occupancy, employment, and pooling and
servicing agreement eligibility. Based on current estimates, of the 3.5 million homeowners who are currently
60+ days delinquent, an estimated 600,000 homeowners are potentially eligible for HAMP Tier 1.
On January 27, 2012, Treasury announced an expansion of the eligibility for HAMP to reduce additional
foreclosures and help stabilize neighborhoods. The eligibility was expanded for non-GSE loans to (1) allow for
more flexible debt-to-income criteria and (2) include properties that are currently occupied by a tenant, as well
as vacant properties which the borrower intends to rent. This expanded HAMP criteria, referred to as HAMP
“Tier 2,” became effective on June 1, 2012 (although not all servicers began offering Tier 2 modifications on that
date). There is insufficient program data at this time to estimate the number of homeowners who may qualify
for HAMP Tier 2.

4 Current unpaid principal balance must be no greater than: $729,750 for a single-unit property, 2 units: $934,200, 3 Units: $1,129,250,
4 Units: $1,403,400.

1,300
All Permanent Modifications Started
(000s)

Estimated Eligible Loans and Borrowers

1,200
1,100
1,000

974 994

1,009

Feb Mar
2012

Apr

1,026 1,043

1,060

1,077 1,091

1,107 1,122

1,136 1,151

1,206
1,167 1,179 1,191

1,223 1,237

900
800
700
600

Source: HAMP system of record.

May June July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan Feb
2013

Mar

Apr

May June July

3

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Second Lien Modification Program (2MP) Activity

Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) 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. Second lien modifications follow a series of steps and may include capitalization, interest
rate reduction, term extension and principal forbearance or forgiveness.

The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA) offers incentives and a streamlined
process 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. Effective November 2012, the GSEs revised their short sale and deed-in-lieu
programs. The GSE Standard HAFA program is closely aligned with Treasury’s MHA HAFA program. In
HAFA transactions, homeowners:

2MP modifications and partial extinguishments require that the first lien HAMP modification be
permanent and active and that the second lien have an unpaid balance of $5,000 or more and a
monthly payment of at least $100.
All Second Lien Modifications Started (Cumulative)1

115,242

Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien Extinguishments

29,269

Second Lien Modifications Disqualified2

8,196

Active Second Lien Modifications3

74,701

Active Second Lien Modifications Involving Partial Lien Extinguishments

8,743

• Follow a streamlined process for short sales and deed-in-lieu transactions that requires no
verification of income (unless as required by investors) and allows for pre-approved short sale
terms;
• Receive a waiver of deficiency once the transaction is completed that releases the
homeowner from remaining mortgage debt;
• Receive at least $3,000 in relocation assistance at closing.

Short Sale
Deed-in-Lieu

Second Lien Extinguishment Details
Median Amount of Full Extinguishment

$61,087

Median Amount of Partial Extinguishment for Active Second Lien Modifications

$9,845

Includes second lien modifications reported into HAMP system of record through the end of cycle for July
2013 data, though the effective date may occur in August 2013. Number of modifications is net of
cancellations, which are primarily due to servicer data corrections.
2 Excludes 3,076 loans paid off.
3 Includes 6,502 loans in active non-payment status whereby the 1MP has disqualified from HAMP. As a
result, the servicer is no longer required to report payment activity on the 2MP modification.
1

Total Transactions Completed

Non-GSE Activity

GSE Activity1

Total

121,596

67,981

189,577

3,673

897

4,570

125,269

68,878

194,147

1 Includes GSE activity under the MHA program in addition to the GSE Standard HAFA program implemented in
November 2012. GSE Standard HAFA data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of July 2013. Does not
include other GSE short sale and deed-in-lieu activity outside the HAFA program. Per the Federal Housing
Finance Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report for the First Quarter of 2013, since 4Q 2008 the GSEs have
completed over 475,000 short sales and deed-in-lieu of foreclosure actions, which includes their activity under
MHA. Please visit www.FHFA.gov for the complete FHFA report.

Treasury FHA-HAMP Modification Activity1

Unemployment Program (UP) Activity
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.

The Treasury FHA-HAMP Program provides assistance to eligible homeowners with FHA-insured
mortgages.

All UP Forbearance Plans Started

34,469

All Treasury FHA-HAMP Trial Modifications Started

29,601

UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required

29,265

All Treasury FHA-HAMP Permanent Modifications Started

15,792

UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required

5,204

Note: Data is as reported by servicers via survey for UP participation through June 30, 2013.

1As reported in the latest edition of the Obama Administration’s Housing Scorecard, FHA has offered over 1.9
million loss mitigation and early delinquency interventions, which includes their activity under MHA.

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

4

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

HAMP Principal Reduction
Principal reduction may be offered to any non-GSE HAMP modifications, and servicers are required to evaluate the benefit of principal reduction for non-GSE mortgages with a loan-to-value ratio greater
than 115% when evaluating a homeowner for a HAMP first lien modification. While servicers are required to evaluate homeowners for principal reduction, they are not required to reduce principal as part
of the modification. The MHA Program allows servicers to provide principal reduction on HAMP modifications in two ways: 1) under HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA), principal is reduced to
lower the LTV, the investor is eligible to receive an incentive on the amount of principal reduced, and the reduction vests over a 3-year period and 2) servicers can also offer principal reduction to
homeowners on a HAMP modification outside the requirements of HAMP PRA. If they do, the investor receives no incentive payment for the principal reduction and the principal reduction can be
recognized immediately.
To encourage investors to consider or expand the use of HAMP PRA, Treasury issued program guidance on February 16, 2012 tripling financial incentives under HAMP PRA for investors who agree to reduce
principal for eligible underwater homeowners. The new program guidance applies to all permanent modifications of non-GSE loans under HAMP that include HAMP PRA and have a trial period plan effective
date on or after March 1, 2012. HAMP PRA can be a feature of a HAMP trial or permanent modification.

HAMP Principal Reduction Activity

All Trial Modifications Started

Modification Characteristics

HAMP Modifications
with Earned
Principal Reduction
Under PRA1

HAMP
Modifications
with Upfront
Principal
Reduction
Outside of PRA

Total HAMP
Modifications
with Principal
Reduction

143,131

45,629

188,760

Trials Reported Since June 2013
Report

4,816

1,216

6,032

Active Trial Modifications

18,464

4,243

22,707

All Permanent Modifications Started

113,321

37,937

151,258

Permanent Modifications Reported
Since June 2013 Report

2,841

1,087

3,928

Active Permanent Modifications

96,003

32,743

128,746

Median Principal Amount Reduced for
Active Permanent Modifications2

$72,905

$56,712

$67,446

Median Principal Amount Reduced for
Active Permanent Modifications (%)3

32.1%

18.0%

29.7%

$8,891,698,273

$2,254,718,065

$11,146,416,338

Total Outstanding Principal Balance
Reduced on Active Permanent
Modifications 2

Includes some modifications with additional principal reduction outside of HAMP PRA.
Under HAMP PRA, principal reduction vests over a 3-year period. The amounts noted reflect the entire amount
that may be forgiven.
3 HAMP PRA amount as a percentage of before-modification UPB, excluding capitalization.

While the population of loan modifications with principal reduction is still relatively small,
program data indicates that modifications with principal reduction are comprised of more
homeowners seriously delinquent at the time of trial start than the overall population of HAMP
homeowners. Overall, homeowners receiving permanent loan modifications with principal
reduction also have a higher before-modification LTV ratio than those without it.
Total HAMP
Modifications
with Principal
All HAMP
Modifications4 Reduction
Of trials started, delinquency at trial start:
- At least 60 days delinquent
80%
84%
- Up to 59 days delinquent or current and in imminent default
20%
16%
Top three States by Activity5, Percent of Total Activity:
- California
- Florida
- Illinois
Top Three States’ Percent of Total

34%
15%
5%
54%

Active Permanent Modifications – Median Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio:
- Before Modification
119%
- After Modification6
116%

150%
115%

Active Permanent Modifications – Median before Modification Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio:
- Front-End DTI
45.5%
45.9%
- Back-End DTI
69.7%
59.8%

1
2

26%
12%
5%
43%

Includes HAMP first lien modifications with and without principal reduction.
Figures reflect active trials and active permanent modifications.
6 Because the first step of the standard HAMP waterfall includes the capitalization of accrued interest, out-ofpocket 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 loan-tovalue ratio can increase in the modification process.

4

5

5

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

HAMP Principal Reduction
The terms of the $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement regarding mortgage servicing deficiencies between the five largest mortgage servicers,
the Federal government, and 49 state attorneys general, have caused servicers to grant non-PRA principal reductions. Of non-GSE loans eligible1 for
principal reduction that started a trial in July 2013, 73% included a principal reduction feature. 63% offered principal reduction through the HAMP
PRA program. The remaining HAMP trial modifications with a principal reduction feature were granted outside the requirements of HAMP PRA,
where the investor does not receive a financial incentive for the principal reduction. Principal reductions granted outside of the HAMP PRA
program since February 2012 are likely attributable to the National Mortgage Settlement.
All Principal Reduction2

Trials Started with Principal Reduction as a % of Eligible
Loans 1

PRA

1 Eligible
2

90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%

56%

50.0%

45%46%45%46%45%56%

40.0%

44%
36%

59%60%60%

62%63%

71%

61%61%
54%54%55%52%55%

57%

80%

77%78%78%

62%62%61%61%

73%

70%71%71%69%70%72%

56%56%55%56%58%

59%60%

73%

63%

46%45%45%45%

35%

30.0%
20.0%

42%

59%60%60%

67%65%69%

73%

76%

28%

10.0%
0.0%

loans include those receiving evaluation under HAMP PRA guidelines plus loans that did not require an evaluation but received principal reduction on their modification.
All Principal Reduction population consists of trials that have any principal reduction, including those with HAMP PRA.

6

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Homeowner Benefits and First Lien Modification Characteristics
Aggregate payment savings to homeowners who received HAMP first lien permanent modifications are estimated to total approximately $21.6 billion, program to date, compared
with unmodified mortgage obligations. The median monthly savings for homeowners in active permanent first lien modifications is $546.73, or 39% of the median monthly payment
before modification.

Modification Steps of Active Permanent Modifications
HAMP modifications follow a series of waterfall steps. The modification steps include
interest rate adjustment, term extension and principal forbearance.
• Under Tier 1, servicers apply the modification steps in sequence until the
homeowner’s post modification front-end debt-to-income (DTI) ratio is 31%. The
impact of each modification step can vary to achieve the target of 31%.
• Under Tier 2, servicers apply consistent modification terms resulting in the
homeowner’s post modification DTI falling within an allowable target range.1

Select Median Characteristics of Active Permanent Modifications

Tier 1

Tier 2

Interest Rate Reduction

96.4%

77.3%

Term Extension

62.6%

77.8%

33.2%

25.3%

Principal Forbearance

1 Subject to investor restrictions. Effective February 1, 2013, Supplemental Directive 12-09 expanded the acceptable DTI range for Tier 2
to 10-55%.

After
Modification

Median
Decrease

Tier 1

45.6%

31.0%

-15.0 pct pts

Tier 2

36.0%

27.9%

-7.5 pct pts

Tier 1

70.0%

51.6%

-15.3 pct pts

Tier 2

51.5%

41.4%

-7.6 pct pts

Tier 1

$1,416.00

$799.94

($549.74)

Tier 2

$1,196.29

$793.36

($361.81)

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio2

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio3

Active permanent modifications reflect the following modification steps:
Modification Step

Before
Modification

Loan Characteristic

Median Monthly Housing
Payment4

Ratio of housing expenses (principal, interest, taxes, insurance and homeowners association and/or condo fees) to monthly gross
income.
3 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. Homeowners who have a back-end debt-to-income ratio of greater than 55% are required to seek housing
counseling under program guidelines.
4 Principal and interest payment. Before modification payment is homeowner’s current payment at time of evaluation.
2

Homeowner Characteristics
• Tier 2 provides another modification opportunity for struggling homeowners who
did not qualify for Tier 1 or received a Tier 1 trial or permanent modification but lost
good standing. Of the Tier 2 trial modifications started:
• 25% were previously in a Tier 1 trial or permanent modification.
• 19% were previously evaluated for Tier 1 and did not meet eligibility
requirements.

• The primary hardship reasons for homeowners in active permanent modifications
are:

• Of the Tier 2 trial modifications started, 8% were for non owner-occupied
properties.

• Of all HAMP trial modifications started, 80% 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.

• The median gross monthly income of homeowners in the program is $3,839.33.
• The median credit score of homeowners in the program is 575.

• 68.1% experienced loss of income (curtailment of income or unemployment)
• 10.5% reported excessive obligation
• 3.5% reported an illness of the principal borrower

7

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

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

35

407

442

0.0%

MT

64

1,020

1,084

0.1%

AL

558

4,819

5,377

0.6%

NC

1,492

15,781

17,273

1.8%

AR

210

1,869

2,079

0.2%

ND

13

132

145

0.0%

AZ

1,306

33,979

35,285

3.7%

NE

119

1,161

1,280

0.1%

CA

14,223

232,775

246,998

25.7%

NH

308

3,880

4,188

0.4%

CO

895

12,540

13,435

1.4%

NJ

2,654

28,665

31,319

3.3%

CT

1,168

11,414

12,582

1.3%

NM

282

2,993

3,275

0.3%

DC

125

1,558

1,683

0.2%

NV

1,098

19,187

20,285

2.1%

DE

241

2,613

2,854

0.3%

NY

4,710

45,332

50,042

5.2%

FL

8,734

108,759

117,493

12.2%

OH

1,798

18,353

20,151

2.1%

GA

2,243

31,821

34,064

3.5%

OK

243

2,076

2,319

0.2%

HI

269

3,484

3,753

0.4%

OR

668

10,053

10,721

1.1%

IA

223

2,042

2,265

0.2%

PA

2,180

18,207

20,387

2.1%

ID

204

3,305

3,509

0.4%

RI

347

4,228

4,575

0.5%

IL

3,599

46,211

49,810

5.2%

SC

760

7,992

8,752

0.9%

IN

842

8,187

9,029

0.9%

SD

30

299

329

0.0%

KS

212

2,062

2,274

0.2%

TN

966

8,745

9,711

1.0%

KY

380

3,192

3,572

0.4%

TX

2,712

24,130

26,842

2.8%

LA

537

4,946

5,483

0.6%

UT

464

7,788

8,252

0.9%

MA

1,849

21,213

23,062

2.4%

VA

1,601

21,122

22,723

2.4%

MD

2,398

28,072

30,470

3.2%

VT

84

779

863

0.1%

ME

261

2,422

2,683

0.3%

WA

1,534

18,990

20,524

2.1%

MI

1,531

26,094

27,625

2.9%

WI

758

8,195

8,953

0.9%

MN

773

13,732

14,505

1.5%

WV

103

1,148

1,251

0.1%

MO

791

8,557

9,348

1.0%

WY

25

410

435

0.0%

MS

346

2,991

3,337

0.3%

Other2

159

3,167

3,326

0.3%

Total reflects active trials and active permanent modifications.
2 Includes Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
1

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: 2nd Quarter
2013 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

8

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

15 Metropolitan Areas With Highest HAMP Activity

Active Trials

Active Permanent
Modifications

Total MSA HAMP
Activity1

% of U.S. HAMP
Activity

Median $
Payment
Reduction2

Median % Payment
Reduction2

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA

4,952

75,066

80,018

8.3%

$873.32

41%

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA

5,692

60,002

65,694

6.8%

$889.50

43%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL

3,863

48,289

52,152

5.4%

$582.99

45%

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

3,470

44,889

48,359

5.0%

$570.12

44%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

2,407

44,349

46,756

4.9%

$690.29

41%

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

2,073

29,821

31,894

3.3%

$697.42

38%

894

27,018

27,912

2.9%

$503.11

41%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA

1,665

25,694

27,359

2.8%

$412.51

40%

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

1,341

20,890

22,231

2.3%

$931.29

40%

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA

1,024

17,031

18,055

1.9%

$811.12

39%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL

1,137

15,714

16,851

1.8%

$496.37

42%

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI

821

15,712

16,533

1.7%

$418.95

41%

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV

892

15,639

16,531

1.7%

$574.90

42%

1,238

15,278

16,516

1.7%

$684.06

39%

791

14,999

15,790

1.6%

$654.06

39%

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA

Total reflects active trials and active permanent modifications.
For active permanent modifications. Median % reflects percent of the median monthly
payment before modification.
1

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

2

9

Making Home Affordable: Summary Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

HAMP Modification Activity by Servicer and Investor Type
Total Active Modifications4

Active Trial
Modifications2

Active Trial
Modifications
Lasting 6
Months or
Longer3

Active
Permanent
Modifications2

GSE

Private

Portfolio

Total

Trial Plan
Offers
Extended1

All HAMP
Trials
Started2

HAMP
Permanent
Modifications
Started2

Bank of America, N.A.

579,770

283,345

134,982

7,364

1,950

92,882

29,791

54,923

15,532

100,246

CitiMortgage, Inc.

220,447

142,124

68,922

3,621

1,160

51,843

32,747

5,971

16,746

55,464

JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A.

432,015

333,564

196,668

7,806

1,042

149,954

68,215

59,138

30,407

157,760

Nationstar Mortgage
LLC

67,861

151,391

99,705

3,267

247

74,146

56,130

19,358

1,925

77,413

Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC

286,783

294,096

199,193

17,572

742

135,064

24,326

111,965

16,345

152,636

OneWest Bank

101,077

68,849

46,419

1,861

52

35,905

15,237

19,385

3,144

37,766

Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.

83,728

84,218

47,334

5,256

481

27,987

485

28,768

3,990

33,243

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

270,778

302,266

174,785

11,251

1,328

132,840

55,760

27,186

61,145

144,091

Other Servicers

264,853

423,267

268,674

11,127

1,664

192,276

168,367

15,736

19,300

203,403

2,307,312

2,083,120

1,236,682

69,125

8,666

892,897

451,058

342,430

168,534

962,022

Servicer

Total

As reported in the monthly servicer survey of large SPA servicers through July 31, 2013. Includes all HAMP mortgage
modification requests approved where trial plan offers were sent to the borrowers, including multiple offers made on a loan.
All Trial Plan Offers Extended do not become HAMP Trials Started because some borrowers do not accept the trial or fail to
make the first trial payment. Figures do not reflect the impact of servicing transfers.
2 These figures include trial modifications that have been converted to permanent modifications, but not reported as such in
the HAMP system of record. Additionally, servicers may process cancellations of permanent modifications for reasons,
including but not limited to, data corrections, loan repurchase agreements, etc. This process requires reverting the impacted
permanent modifications to trials in the HAMP system of record with re-boarding of some of these permanent modifications in
subsequent reporting periods. Prior to being re-boarded as permanent modifications, these modifications are reported as
Active Trials. These modifications may be 6 months or more beyond their first trial payment due date resulting in their
classification as an Aged Trials. As a result, fluctuations are expected in this population.
1

These figures include trial modifications that have been converted to permanent modifications, but not reported as such to
the HAMP system of record.
Total active modifications reflects active trial and active permanent HAMP modifications.

3

4

See Appendix A1 and A2 for additional information on servicer participants in Making Home Affordable programs.

10

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Making Home Affordable Programs by Servicer1
HAMP First Lien Modifications

Principal Reduction Alternative
(PRA)2

Second Lien
Modification (2MP)

Home Affordable
Foreclosure
Alternatives (HAFA)5

Trials
Started3

Permanent
Modifications
Started3

Trials
Started3

Permanent
Modifications
Started3

Second Lien
Modifications
Started4

Transactions
Completed

Bank of America, N.A.

283,345

134,982

13,767

11,628

36,137

39,655

CitiMortgage, Inc.

142,124

68,922

3,318

2,341

14,119

923

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

333,564

196,668

30,907

26,837

33,338

34,067

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

151,391

99,705

1,698

1,698

263

4,224

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC6

294,096

199,193

48,723

34,246

N/A

11,663

OneWest Bank

68,849

46,419

7,500

6,440

3,752

4,122

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

84,218

47,334

4,617

3,577

N/A

4,419

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

302,266

174,785

27,359

22,608

17,514

21,469

Other Servicers

423,267

268,674

5,242

3,946

10,119

4,727

2,083,120

1,236,682

143,131

113,321

115,242

125,269

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
2 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.
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 additional information on 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. Includes Non-GSE activity under the MHA program only.
Servicer GSE program data not available.
6
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC includes loans previously reported under Litton Loan
Servicing LP, Homeward Residential, Inc. and GMAC Mortgage, LLC. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC is not a participant in the 2MP program. 2MP activity previously
attributed to GMAC Mortgage, LLC is reflected in “Other Servicers.”
N/A – Servicer does not participate in the program.

11

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Servicer Outreach to 60+ Day Delinquent Homeowners: Cumulative Servicer Results, July 2012 – June 2013
Per program guidance, servicers are directed to establish Right Party Contact (RPC) with homeowners of delinquent HAMP eligible
loans1 and then evaluate the homeowners' eligibility for HAMP. There is a range of performance results across top program servicers
with respect to making RPC and completing the evaluations.
100%

95%

90%

94%

91%

89%
83%

82%

78%

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%

82%

82%

76%

71%

82%
63%

30%

68%

Servicer
Unable to
Report
Comprehensive
Data

20%
10%
0%
Bank of America

CitiMortgage

JPMorgan Chase

Nationstar

Right Party Contact Ratio2

Ocwen

OneWest

SPS

Wells Fargo

HAMP Evaluations Complete Ratio3

1 Homeowners with HAMP eligible loans, which include conventional loans that were originated on or before Jan. 1, 2009; excludes loans with current unpaid principal balances greater than current conforming loan limits, FHA and VA loans, loans
where investor pooling and servicing agreements preclude modification, and manufactured housing loans with title/chattel issues that exclude them from HAMP.
2 Right Party Contact (RPC) is achieved when a servicer has successfully communicated directly with the homeowner obligated under the mortgage about resolution of their delinquency in accordance with program guidelines. The RPC ratio reflects
the share of homeowners with which the servicer has established RPC as a percent of HAMP eligible loans, excluding homeowners where RPC or HAMP evaluation is no longer needed.
3 HAMP evaluations complete ratio reflects the share of homeowners who have been evaluated for HAMP as a percent of HAMP eligible loans, excluding homeowners where RPC or HAMP evaluation is no longer needed. Evaluated homeowners
include those offered a trial plan, those that are denied or did not accept a trial plan and homeowners that failed to submit a complete HAMP evaluation package by program-specified timelines.

Source: Survey of largest participating servicers as of June 30, 2013.

12

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Average Homeowner Delinquency at Trial Start1
Servicers are instructed to follow a series of steps in order to evaluate homeowners for HAMP, including:
• Identifying and soliciting the homeowners in the early stages of delinquency;
• Making reasonable efforts to establish right party contact with the homeowners;
• Gathering required documentation once contact is established in order to evaluate the homeowners for a HAMP trial; and,
• Communicating decisions to the homeowners.
Effective 10/1/11, a new servicer compensation structure exists to encourage servicers to work with struggling homeowners in the early stages of delinquency with the highest
incentives paid for permanent modifications completed when the homeowner is 120 days delinquent or less at the trial start.

300

Maximum servicer incentive is paid for
converting a permanent modification
that was 120 days delinquent or less at
trial start.

250

Days

200

150

100

50

0
Bank of America

CitiMortgage

JPMorgan Chase

Nationstar

Ocwen

OneWest

SPS

Wells Fargo

For all permanent modifications started, the average number of days delinquent as of the trial plan start date. Delinquency is calculated as the number of days between the homeowner's last paid
installment before the trial plan and the first payment due date of the trial plan.

1

13

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Conversion Rate1
Per program guidelines, effective June 1, 2010, all trials must be started using verified income documentation. Of eligible trials started on or after June 1, 2010,
88% have converted to permanent modifications with an average trial length of 3.5 months. Prior to June 1, 2010, some servicers initiated trials using stated
income information. Of trials started prior to June 1, 2010, 44% have converted to permanent modifications.
Average Of Eligible Trials Started On/After 6/1/10
88% Converted to Permanent Modification
3% Pending Processing or Decision
100%

88%

87%

90%

91%
83%

74%

75%

Conversion Rate

91%

85%

50%

25%

0%
Bank of America

CitiMortgage

JPMorgan Chase

Nationstar

Ocwen

OneWest

SPS

Wells Fargo

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.

1

14

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Select Measures of Homeowners’ Experience with MHA
Homeowner’s HOPETM Hotline Volume1

Program
to Date

July

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

3,939,197

50,592

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

2,164,954

27,993

Selected Homeowner Outreach Measures

Program to Date

Homeowner Outreach Events Hosted Nationally by Treasury and Partners (cumulative)

87

Homeowners Attending Treasury-Sponsored Events (cumulative)

1 Source:

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

2 Source:

74,614

Servicer Solicitation of Borrowers (cumulative)2

9,434,621

Page views on MakingHomeAffordable.gov (July 2013)

1,308,394

Page views on MakingHomeAffordable.gov (cumulative)

177,069,788

Servicer Time to Resolve Non-GSE Escalations: Average Resolution Time by Quarter in Which Escalations were Resolved1
Servicers are required to resolve borrower inquiries and disputes that are escalated by the MHA Support Centers. Escalated cases include allegations that the servicer did not properly assess the
homeowner according to program guidelines, inappropriately denied the homeowner for applicable MHA program(s), or initiated or continued inappropriate foreclosure actions. Effective February 1,
2011, the servicers are directed to review and resolve non-GSE escalated cases within 30 calendar days from receipt of the case by the escalating party. Over the last four quarters, a majority of the
largest servicers’ non-GSE resolved cases have an average resolution time at or below the 30 -day target.
Target: 30 Calendar Days2
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Current Quarter
35
30

Days

25
20
15
10
5
0
Bank of America

CitiMortgage

JPMorgan Chase

Bank of
America

CitiMortgage

Nationstar

JPMorgan
Chase

Ocwen

Nationstar

OneWest

SPS

Ocwen

OneWest

Wells Fargo

SPS

Wells Fargo

GSE Cases

7,117

1,111

2,454

756

782

593

10

1,921

Resolved Cases3

Non-GSE Cases

9,155

827

3,778

665

4,322

867

431

4,117

Active Cases

Total
Total

16,272
108

1,938
25

6,232
33

1,421
75

5,104
31

1,460
14

441
20

6,038
58

1 Non-GSE

escalations only; excludes cases escalated to the MHA Support Centers but not yet escalated to servicers. Average resolution time calculation excludes cases referred to servicers prior to February 1, 2011, 'Investor denial' cases referred to
servicers between February 1, 2011 and November 1, 2011, cases involving bankruptcy, and cases that did not require servicer actions.
2 Target of 30 calendar days includes an estimated 5 days of processing by MHA Support Centers.
3 Resolved cases include all escalations resolved on or after February 1, 2011 through July 31, 2013 and exclude those that did not require servicer actions.
Source: MHA Support Centers.

15

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Disposition Path
Homeowners in Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications
Survey Data Through June 2013 (Largest Servicers)
•

HAMP guidance requires that a servicer work with a delinquent homeowner in a permanent modification to cure the delinquency.

•

In the event the homeowner cannot bring a delinquent HAMP modification current without additional assistance, the servicer is prevented from commencing foreclosure proceedings until the
borrower is evaluated for any other loss mitigation action, including other types of modifications or short sales.

•

The majority of homeowners who fall out of HAMP receive an alternative to foreclosure, including but not limited to HAMP Tier 2, an unemployment forbearance, assistance through the
Hardest Hit Fund, an alternative modification, or a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.

•

Less than a quarter of homeowners who have disqualified from HAMP have been referred to foreclosure.

Status of Homeowners Whose HAMP Permanent Modification Disqualified:

Action
Pending1

Action Not
Allowed –
Bankruptcy in
Process

Borrower
Became
Current

Bank of America, N.A.

4,305

1,602

2,763

8,740

CitiMortgage, Inc.

1,349

1,938

1,198

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

4,448

1,664

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

9,672

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Alternative
Modification Payment Plan2

Loan Payoff

Short Sale/
Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure
Starts

Foreclosure
Completions

Total

1,525

505

7,423

2,765

6,722

36,350

2,625

606

127

2,002

1,484

1,963

13,292

3,892

13,582

1,341

300

7,174

5,110

4,012

41,523

1,820

3,936

768

4

134

2,131

2,967

75

21,507

7,893

2,298

3,742

25,422

4,535

806

3,416

6,546

4,176

58,834

OneWest Bank

1,115

597

1,062

1,329

951

32

1,456

1,718

1,544

9,804

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

4,322

989

831

4,697

893

45

1,731

2,507

1,750

17,765

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

2,895

3,154

1,187

15,490

1,054

759

3,664

1,879

6,357

36,439

35,999

14,062

18,611

72,653

10,909

2,708

28,997

24,976

26,599

235,514

15.3%

6.0%

7.9%

30.8%

4.6%

1.1%

12.3%

10.6%

11.3%

100.0%

Servicer

TOTAL
(These Largest Servicers)

Note: Data is as reported by servicers for actions completed through June 30, 2013. This data reflects the status of homeowners as of June 30, 2013; a homeowner's status may change over time. Survey
data is not subject to the same data quality checks as data uploaded into the HAMP system of record.
1 Permanent modifications that have been disqualified, but no further action has yet been taken.
2 An arrangement with the borrower and servicer that does not involve a formal loan modification.
Note: Excludes disqualifications pending data corrections and loans otherwise removed from servicing portfolios.

16

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Disposition Path
Homeowners in Canceled HAMP Trial Modifications
Survey Data Through June 2013 (Largest Servicers)
Status of Homeowners Whose HAMP Trial Modification Was Canceled:

Servicer

Action
Pending1

Action Not
Allowed –
Bankruptcy in
Borrower
Process Became Current

Alternative
Modification

Payment
Plan2

Loan Payoff

Short Sale/
Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure
Starts

Foreclosure
Completions

Total

Bank of America, N.A.

4,450

2,394

8,043

31,527

687

9,037

22,771

6,337

40,222

125,468

CitiMortgage, Inc.

2,753

6,858

6,015

21,690

1,442

3,601

6,848

3,293

12,635

65,135

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

4,468

2,798

21,542

33,211

1,316

4,232

16,361

6,671

21,134

111,733

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

8,558

2,136

21,087

2,412

3

1,637

2,389

4,038

297

42,557

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

2,823

2,044

3,493

35,823

2,827

2,496

3,684

6,443

8,681

68,314

746

635

564

6,197

572

242

2,375

2,743

6,281

20,355

3,374

916

2,253

9,072

388

422

2,696

4,005

5,905

29,031

458

4,857

8,349

43,812

244

10,831

8,274

7,058

31,046

114,929

27,630

22,638

71,346

183,744

7,479

32,498

65,398

40,588

126,201

577,522

4.8%

3.9%

12.4%

31.8%

1.3%

5.6%

11.3%

7.0%

21.9%

100%

OneWest Bank
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
TOTAL
(These Largest Servicers)

Note: Data is as reported by servicers for actions completed through June 30, 2013. This data reflects the status of homeowners as of June 30, 2013; a homeowner's status may change over time. 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.
Note: Excludes cancellations pending data corrections and loans otherwise removed from servicing portfolios.
See Appendix A1 and A2 for additional information on servicer participants in Making Home Affordable programs.

17

Making Home Affordable: Servicer Results
Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Disposition Path
Homeowners Not Accepted for HAMP Trial Modifications
Survey Data Through June 2013 (Largest Servicers)
Status of Homeowners Not Accepted for a HAMP Trial Modification:

Servicer

Action
Pending1

Action Not
Allowed –
Bankruptcy in
Borrower
Process Became Current

Alternative
Modification

Payment
Plan2

Loan Payoff

Short Sale/
Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure
Starts

Foreclosure
Completions

Total

Bank of America, N.A.

12,108

8,387

58,226

78,602

3,021

36,819

48,745

18,216

75,968

340,092

CitiMortgage, Inc.

7,444

20,213

27,284

45,295

6,179

7,298

21,754

11,549

28,994

176,010

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

20,803

15,498

142,018

161,755

9,215

85,651

82,356

35,170

59,175

611,641

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

44,240

5,523

62,941

7,813

7

13,210

7,466

4,797

438

146,435

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

15,760

8,618

52,904

188,238

14,139

25,406

28,468

27,280

40,446

401,259

OneWest Bank

4,659

3,562

35,381

31,246

4,959

9,280

10,820

10,355

19,567

129,829

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

7,248

992

5,630

14,705

827

781

4,471

3,769

4,150

42,573

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

9,236

13,865

61,788

64,569

1,437

33,513

35,611

25,908

43,627

289,554

121,498

76,658

446,172

592,223

39,784

211,958

239,691

137,044

272,365

2,137,393

5.7%

3.6%

20.9%

27.7%

1.9%

9.9%

11.2%

6.4%

12.7%

100.0%

TOTAL
(These Largest Servicers)

Note: Data is as reported by servicers for actions completed through June 30, 2013. This data reflects the status of homeowners as of June 30, 2013; a homeowner's status may change over time. 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.
Note: Excludes loans removed from servicing portfolios.
See Appendix A1 and A2 for additional information on servicer participants in Making Home Affordable programs.

18

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
the largest servicers participating in MHA. Not only do 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 have set a 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)

19

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 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 21 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 40 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.

20

MHA Servicer Assessment
Overview

2nd Quarter 2013 Servicer Assessment Results
The following table details the results of the Servicer Assessments, based on compliance and program results:

Improvement Needed

Servicer Name

Substantial

Moderate

Bank of America, N.A.
CitiMortgage, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
OneWest Bank
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Minor

For the second quarter of 2013, Bank of America, N.A, OneWest Bank and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. were determined to need moderate improvement and
their compliance results for the second quarter approached the level required for a determination of minor improvement.
CitiMortgage, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. were also found to need moderate improvement.
Please refer to the following MHA Servicer Assessment pages for further detail on the Second Quarter 2013 servicer assessment results.

21

MHA Servicer Assessment
Overview

MHA Compliance Results, Loan File Review: Second Look % Disagree, 2nd Quarter 2011-2nd Quarter 2013
Second Look % Disagree: Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the servicer’s MHA determination. Treasury’s benchmark is that
the second look % disagree must be less than 4%. The first servicer assessment results published by Treasury covered the first quarter of 2011. The chart
shows the change in performance over the last two years.

Bank of America

CitiMortgage

GMAC*

Homeward Residential*

JPMorgan Chase

Litton*

Ocwen

One West

Select Porfolio Servicing

Wells Fargo

Average

8.0%
7.0%
6.0%

Benchmark: 4%

5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2Q11

3Q11

4Q11

1Q12

2Q12

3Q12

4Q12

1Q13

* Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC includes loans previously reported under Litton Loan Servicing LP, Homeward Residential, Inc. and GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

2Q13

22

MHA Servicer Assessment
Overview

MHA Compliance Results, Loan File Review: Second Look % Unable to Determine, 2nd Quarter 2011-2nd Quarter 2013
Second Look % Unable to Determine: Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on the servicer’s MHA determination. Treasury’s
benchmark is that the second look % unable to determine must be less than 10%. The first servicer assessment results published by Treasury covered the first
quarter of 2011. The chart shows the change in performance over the last two years.

Bank of America

CitiMortgage

GMAC*

Homeward Residential*

JPMorgan Chase

Litton*

Ocwen

One West

Select Porfolio Servicing

Wells Fargo

Average

Benchmark: 10%

11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
2Q11

3Q11

4Q11

1Q12

2Q12

3Q12

4Q12

1Q13

* Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC includes loans previously reported under Litton Loan Servicing LP, Homeward Residential, Inc. and GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

2Q13

23

MHA Servicer Assessment
Overview

MHA Compliance Results, Loan File Review: Income Calculation Error %, 2nd Quarter 2011-2nd Quarter 2013
Income Calculation Error %: Percentage of loans for which MHA-C’s income calculation differs from the servicer’s by more than 5%. Treasury’s benchmark is
that the income calculation error % must be less than 5%. Correctly calculating homeowner monthly income is a critical component of evaluating eligibility for
MHA, as well as establishing an accurate modification payment. The first servicer assessment results published by Treasury covered the first quarter of 2011. The
chart shows the change in performance over the last two years.
Bank of America

CitiMortgage

GMAC*

Homeward Residential*

JPMorgan Chase

Litton*

Ocwen

One West

Select Porfolio Servicing

Wells Fargo

Average

25%

20%

15%

Benchmark: 5%

10%

5%

0%
2Q11

3Q11

4Q11

1Q12

2Q12

3Q12

4Q12

1Q13

* Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC includes loans previously reported under Litton Loan Servicing LP, Homeward Residential, Inc. and GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

2Q13

24

MHA Servicer Assessment
Overview

MHA Compliance Results, Loan File Review: 2nd Quarter 2011–2nd Quarter 2013

Second Look % Disagree1

Second Look % Unable to Determine2

Income Calculation Error Rate3

Q2
2011

Q3
2011

Q4
2011

Q1
2012

Q2
2012

Q3
2012

Q4
2012

Q1
2013

Q2
2013

Q2
2011

Q3
2011

Q4
2011

Q1
2012

Q2
2012

Q3
2012

Q4
2012

Q1
2013

Q2
2013

Q2
2011

Q3
2011

Q4
2011

Q1
2012

Q2
2012

Q3
2012

Q4
2012

Q1
2013

Q2
2013

Bank of America,
N.A.

0.8%

1.0%

1.0%

2.0%

1.0%

1.2%

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

8.2%

1.5%

1.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

13.2% 6.0%

6.0%

5.0%

2.0%

3.0%

1.0%

3.0%

3.0%

CitiMortgage, Inc.

0.5%

1.5%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

2.0%

6.7%

1.3%

4.7%

5.5%

0.5%

1.0%

0.5%

1.0%

3.8%

6.0%

4.7%

0.0%

12.0% 6.0%

3.0%

4.0%

1.0%

3.1%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

GMAC Mortgage,
LLC 4

1.7%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.3%

2.0%

0.0%

N/A

0.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

N/A

4.2%

4.2%

6.5%

4.0%

6.0% 10.0% 4.0%

2.0%

N/A

Homeward
Residential, Inc. 4

0.7%

0.0%

1.5%

1.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

N/A

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.5%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

N/A

5.3%

2.0%

1.0%

2.0%

1.0%

4.0%

7.0%

2.0%

N/A

JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A.

1.2%

0.0%

0.7%

0.2%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.7%

3.2%

0.9%

1.0%

0.7%

1.7%

1.4%

3.8%

3.1%

2.7%

20.6% 6.0% 10.0% 9.0%

0.0%

2.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.0%

Litton Loan
Servicing, LP4

3.3%

1.0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2.7%

2.0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2.0%

1.0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

2.7%

0.0%

0.7%

1.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

3.1%

3.0%

2.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

3.0%

3.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

1.3%

OneWest Bank

0.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

2.0%

0.0%

3.0%

1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

2.0%

1.3%

2.0%

0.3%

0.8%

0.0%

3.0%

0.0%

0.7%

0.7%

0.7%

0.0%

10.0% 3.2%

1.0%

3.0%

2.0%

3.0%

2.0%

0.0%

3.1%

Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A.

0.4%

0.4%

0.0%

0.3%

1.0%

1.3%

3.0%

1.3%

3.0%

1.3%

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

1.0%

0.5%

0.3%

0.0%

4.4%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

1.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

Servicer

5.5%

1

Second Look % Disagree: Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the servicer’s MHA determination.
Look % Unable to Determine: Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C was not able to conclude on the servicer’s MHA determination.
Income Calculation Error %: Percentage of loans for which MHA-C’s income calculation differs from the servicer’s by more than 5%.
4 Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC includes loans previously reported under Litton Loan Servicing LP, Homeward Residential, Inc. and GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

2 Second
3

25

MHA Servicer Assessment: Bank of America, N.A.
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.

Second Quarter 2013
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



0.0%



< 10%

0.0%





-



< 5%

3.0%





-



< 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

Q2 Results

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed

 Bank of America, N.A. has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed

 After considering all relevant factors, Bank of America, N.A. servicer incentives will

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

not be withheld at this time.

26

MHA Servicer Assessment: Bank of America, N.A.
Program Results

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

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
6.3%
5.1%
2.0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

Bank of
America, N.A.

40.5%
43.0%

26.3%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

32.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40.5%
43.3%

40%

50%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases
7
7

Best
Servicer
Performance

8
24
24
24
31
31
30

Worst
Servicer
Performance

10

84.5%
85.5%
87.6%

Bank of
America, N.A.

20

30

40

Dec. 2012
Mar. 2013
June 2013

82.0%
80.6%
76.4%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

Best
Servicer
Performance

Bank of
America, N.A.

0

91.5%
92.0%
91.4%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Bank of
America, N.A.

2.2%
3.6%
1.2%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

2.7%
3.6%
3.1%

0%

5%

10%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.

15%

20%

25%

27

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.

Second Quarter 2013
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



4.7%



< 10%

0.0%





-



< 5%

2.0%





-



< 5%

1.6%





-



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

Q2 Results

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

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

not be withheld at this time.

28

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

Results as of:
6.3%
5.1%
2.0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

25.5%

CitiMortgage, Inc.

43.3%

CitiMortgage, Inc.

40.5%
43.3%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

32.1%
Worst
Servicer
Performance

32.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases
7
7

Best
Servicer
Performance

8
23
23
23
31
31
30

20

30

0%

20%

Mar. 2013
June 2013

40%

60%

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.4%
1.1%
2.7%
3.6%
3.1%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

40

Dec. 2012

82.0%
80.6%
76.4%

CitiMortgage, Inc.

Worst
Servicer
Performance

10

86.8%
87.3%
86.9%

Best
Servicer
Performance

CitiMortgage, Inc.

0

91.5%
92.0%
91.4%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

5%

10%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.

15%

20%

25%

29

MHA Servicer Assessment: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
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.

Second Quarter 2013
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



0.7%



< 10%

2.7%





-



< 5%

0.0%





-



< 5%

0.2%





-



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

Q2 Results

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed

 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed

 After considering all relevant factors, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. servicer incentives

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

will not be withheld at this time.

30

MHA Servicer Assessment: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Program Results

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

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
6.3%
5.1%
2.0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

6.3%
10.1%
12.7%

JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.

32.1%

10%

20%

30%

40.5%
43.3%

40%

50%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases
7
7

Best
Servicer
Performance

88.6%
89.5%
89.8%

JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

91.5%
92.0%
91.4%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

31
31
30

JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.

Worst
Servicer
Performance

31
31
30

Worst
Servicer
Performance

10

20

30

40

June 2013

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.

0

Mar. 2013

82.0%
80.6%
76.4%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

Best
Servicer
Performance

8

Dec. 2012

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.4%
1.6%
2.7%
3.6%
3.1%

0%

5%

10%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.

15%

20%

25%

31

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.

Second Quarter 2013
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



3.1%



< 10%

2.0%





-



< 5%

1.3%





-



< 5%

0.6%





-



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

Q2 Results

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

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

not be withheld at this time.

32

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:

6.3%

Best
Servicer
Performance

5.1%
2.0%

11.9%

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

40.5%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

32.1%

10%

20%

30%

40%

43.3%

50%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases
7
7

Best
Servicer
Performance

8
10
10

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

16
31
31
30

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0

10

82.0%
80.6%
86.6%

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

14.6%

5.6%

0%

91.5%
92.0%
91.4%

Best
Servicer
Performance

20

30

Mar. 2013
June 20131

82.0%
80.6%
76.4%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)
Best
Servicer
Performance

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

1.0%
0.7%
0.1%
2.7%
3.6%
3.1%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

40

Dec. 2012

0%

5%

10%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1 Results for June 2013 include loans previously reported under Homeward Residential, Inc. and GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

15%

20%

25%

33

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.

Second Quarter 2013
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



0.0%



< 10%

0.0%





-



< 5%

0.0%





-



< 5%

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



Benchmark

Q2 Results

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed

 OneWest Bank has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed

 After considering all relevant factors, OneWest Bank servicer incentives will

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

not be withheld at this time.

34

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:
6.3%
5.1%
2.0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

9.3%
5.1%
2.0%

OneWest Bank

Worst
Servicer
Performance

32.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40.5%
43.3%

40%

50%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases
7
7

Best
Servicer
Performance

8
14
13
13

OneWest Bank

31
31
30

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0

10

20

30

Best
Servicer
Performance

91.5%
92.0%
91.4%

OneWest Bank

91.5%
92.0%
91.4%

Mar. 2013
June 2013

82.0%
80.6%
76.4%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

Best
Servicer
Performance

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

OneWest Bank

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
3.6%
3.1%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

40

Dec. 2012

0%

5%

10%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.

15%

20%

25%

35

MHA Servicer Assessment: Select Portfolio 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.

Second Quarter 2013
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



2.0%



< 10%

0.0%





-



< 5%

3.1%





-



< 5%

1.0%





-



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



Benchmark

Q2 Results

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed

 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed

 After considering all relevant factors, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. servicer incentives

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

will not be withheld at this time.

36

MHA Servicer Assessment: Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
Program Results

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

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
6.3%
5.1%
2.0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.

7.6%

27.4%

15.0%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

32.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40.5%
43.3%

40%

50%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases
7
7

Best
Servicer
Performance

7
7

Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.

Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.

82.2%
82.0%
76.4%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

82.0%
80.6%
76.4%

0%

8

Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.

8

20

30

40

40%

60%

80%

Mar. 2013
June 2013

100%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
3.1%
2.7%
3.6%
3.1%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

31
31
30

10

20%

Dec. 20121

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)
Best
Servicer
Performance

Worst
Servicer
Performance

0

91.5%
92.0%
91.4%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.
1Select Portfolio Servicing received transferred loans that impacted its program results in late 2012, resulting in a temporary increase in the aged trials as a percentage of active trials.

37

MHA Servicer Assessment: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
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.

Second Quarter 2013
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



3.0%



< 10%

0.0%





-



< 5%

0.5%





-



< 5%

0.4%





-



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

Q2 Results

Did not meet benchmark; substantial improvement needed

 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has areas requiring moderate improvement.

Did not meet benchmark; moderate improvement needed

 After considering all relevant factors, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. servicer incentives will

 Met benchmark; minor improvement may be indicated

not be withheld at this time.

38

MHA Servicer Assessment: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Program Results

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

Aged Trials as a Percentage of Active Trials

Results as of:
6.3%
5.1%
2.0%

Best
Servicer
Performance

13.8%

Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.

Worst
Servicer
Performance

32.1%

10%

20%

30%

40.5%
43.3%

40%

50%

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases
7
7

Best
Servicer
Performance

8
25
25
24

10

0%

20

30

20%

June 2013

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.3%
0.1%
2.7%
3.6%
3.1%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

40

Mar. 2013

Missing Modification Status Reports (%)

Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.

31
31
30

Worst
Servicer
Performance

Dec. 2012

82.0%
80.6%
76.4%

Worst
Servicer
Performance

Best
Servicer
Performance

Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.

0

88.7%
88.7%
90.2%

Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.

26.4%

14.8%

0%

91.5%
92.0%
91.4%

Best
Servicer
Performance

0%

5%

10%

Note: The best and worst performance reflect the best and worst result of the largest servicers for the period. See appendix for descriptions of the metrics.

15%

20%

25%

39

MHA Servicer Assessment
Metrics Descriptions

Appendix

Compliance Metrics (quantitative)
Second Look % Disagree:
Second Look is a process in which MHA-C reviews loans not in a
permanent modification, to assess the accuracy of the servicer’s
determination of whether the homeowner is eligible for a
modification. This metric measures the percentage of loans
reviewed in Second Look with which MHA-C disagrees with a
servicer’s determination.

Second Look % Unable to Determine:
This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed in Second
Look for which MHA-C is not able to determine, based on the
documentation provided, how the servicer reached its loanmodification decision.

Incentive Payment Data Errors:

Aged Trials as % of Active Trials:

Treasury pays incentives to servicers, investors, and homeowners
for permanent modifications completed under MHA. Although
intended for different recipients, all incentives are paid through the
servicer. Data that servicers upload to the program system of
record is used to calculate the incentives paid to servicers,
investors, and homeowners. This metric measures how data
anomalies between servicer loan files and the reported
information affect incentive payments. For Incentive Payment
Data Error results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to
take include, but are not limited to: correcting the identified errors
and correcting system and operational processes such that
accurate data is mapped to its appropriate places in the program
system of record.

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.

Compliance Metrics (qualitative)

Servicers establish processes and internal controls to help ensure
their compliance with Program guidance. For each of the
For both Second Look Disagree and Unable to Determine results,
performance categories, Treasury performs a qualitative
remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but
assessment of those internal controls based on MHA-C’s
are not limited to: reevaluating loans not offered HAMP
compliance reviews. That assessment evaluates the nature, scope,
modifications, submitting additional documentation to support the and potential or actual impact on homeowners resulting from
initial reason for denial of the modification, clarifying loan status,
instances of servicer non-compliance with its own internal controls.
and engaging in systemic process remediation. For such results,
For ineffective internal controls, remedial actions Treasury requires
servicers are also reminded of their obligation to suspend
servicers to take include, but are not limited to: identifying and
foreclosure of the loan until the unresolved items are remediated. reevaluating any affected loans, enhancing the effectiveness of
internal controls, and conducting staff training on servicer
Income Calculation Errors:
procedures.
Correctly calculating homeowner monthly income is a critical
component of evaluating eligibility for MHA, as well as establishing Program Metrics
an accurate modification payment. This metric measures how
Conversion Rate:
often MHA-C disagrees with a servicer’s calculation of a borrower’s
Monthly Gross Income, allowing for up to a 5% differential from
This cumulative metric looks at the rate of conversion to
MHA-C’s calculations. For Income Calculation Error results,
permanent modification for trials started on or after June 1, 2010,
remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but
when all servicers were required to verify income documentation
are not limited to: correcting income errors exceeding the 5%
at trial start. Conversion rate is measured against all trials eligible
differential, requiring the servicer to review their own income
to convert – those three months in trial, or four months if the
calculation accuracy, enhancing policies and procedures, and
borrower was at risk of imminent default at trial modification start.
conducting staff training on income calculation.
Permanent modifications transferred among servicers are credited
to the originating servicer. However, trial modifications transferred
are reflected in the current servicer's population. A servicer's
conversion rate can be negatively impacted by the transfer of trial
modifications.

Per program guidance, servicers began processing GSE loan
repurchase activity in March 2013. This process requires reverting
the impacted permanent modifications to trials in the HAMP
system of record with re-boarding of some of these modifications
in subsequent months. Prior to being re-boarded as permanent
modifications, these modifications are reported as Active Trials.
Many of these loans are six months or more beyond their first trial
payment due date resulting in their classification as an Aged Trial.
Fluctuations over the next few reporting cycles are expected in this
population for all servicers as they complete the re-boarding
process.

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 nonGSE 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 updated to only
include non-GSE cases escalated on or after 2/1/2011. The figures
exclude investor denial cases escalated prior to 11/1/2011. Cases
involving bankruptcy and those 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.
Treasury revised its Federally Declared Disaster (FDD) guidance,
allowing servicers to suspend OMR reporting for loans where the
homeowner was impacted by Hurricane Sandy or any other FDD.
This guidance may impact missing OMR reporting.

For more information on the assessments, please visit:
www.FinancialStability.gov.

40

Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Through July 2013

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.
AMS Servicing, LLC
Bank of America, N.A.1
Bank United
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
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
Glass City Federal Credit Union
Great Lakes Credit Union
Greater Nevada Mortgage Services

Bank of America, N.A. includes all loans previously reported under BAC Home Loans Servicing LP,
Home Loan Services and Wilshire Credit Corporation.
2 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. includes all loans previously reported under EMC Mortgage Corporation.
3 Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC includes loans previously reported under Litton Loan Servicing LP,
Homeward Residential, Inc. and GMAC Mortgage, LLC.
1

PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
PNC Bank, National Association
PNC Mortgage4
Purdue Employees Federal Credit
Union
QLending, Inc.
Quantum Servicing Corporation
Residential Credit Solutions
RG Mortgage Corporation
RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing
Corporation
Schools Financial Credit Union
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
Servis One Inc., dba BSI Financial
Services, Inc.
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
Sterling Savings Bank
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.

Green Tree Servicing LLC
Hartford Savings Bank
Hillsdale County National Bank
HomEq Servicing
Horicon Bank
IC Federal Credit Union
Idaho Housing and Finance Association
iServe Residential Lending LLC
iServe Servicing Inc.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.2
Lake City Bank
Liberty Bank and Trust Co.
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, LLC3
OneWest Bank
ORNL Federal Credit Union
Pathfinder Bank
4
5

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.5
Yadkin Valley Bank

Formerly National City Bank.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. includes all loans previously reported under Wachovia Mortgage, FSB.

41

Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Through July 2013

Appendix A2: Participants in Additional Making Home Affordable Programs
Second Lien Modification Program (2MP)

Bank of America, N.A.1
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Green Tree Servicing LLC
iServe Residential Lending, LLC
iServe Servicing, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.2
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, N.A. 4

FHA First Lien Program (Treasury FHA-HAMP)
Amarillo National Bank
American Financial Resources Inc.
Aurora Financial Group, Inc.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
Bank of America, N.A.1
Capital International Financial, Inc.
CitiMortgage, Inc.
CU Mortgage Services, Inc.
First Federal Bank of Florida
First Mortgage Corporation
Franklin Savings
Gateway Mortgage Group, LLC
Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Guaranty Bank
iServe Residential Lending, LLC
iServe Servicing, Inc.
James B. Nutter & Company
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 2
M&T Bank
Marix Servicing, LLC
Marsh Associates, Inc.
Midland Mortgage Company
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC5
PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
PNC Mortgage3
Residential Credit Solutions
Schmidt Mortgage Company
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc..
Servis One Inc., dba BSI Financial Services, Inc.
Stockman Bank of Montana
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 4
Weststar Mortgage, Inc.

Residential Credit Solutions
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 4

Rural Housing Service Modification Program
(RD-HAMP)

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
Bank of America, N.A.1
Horicon Bank
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.2
Magna Bank
Marix Servicing, LLC
Midland Mortgage Company
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.4

FHA Second Lien Program (FHA 2LP)

Bank of America, N.A.1
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Flagstar Capital Markets Corporation
Green Tree Servicing, LLC
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.2
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
PNC Bank, National Association
PNC Mortgage 3

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

42