The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Making Home Affordable Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT THROUGH THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2016 MHA AT-A-GLANCE Nearly 2.7 Million Homeowner Assistance Actions have taken place under Making Home Affordable (MHA) programs Treasury, HUD and FHFA released a white paper, Guiding Principles for the Future of Loss Mitigation: How the Lessons Learned from the Financial Crisis can Influence the Path Forward. The white paper serves as a guide for the development of future loss mitigation programs that draws on the lessons learned from implementing the government-sponsored housing programs. (See page 4 for more details) QUARTERLY PROGRAM VOLUMES FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2016 (Months of April, May, and June) 1MP* Q2: 45.3K PTD: 2.0M See Page 4 2MP Q2: 2.3K PTD: 159K See Page 13 HAFA UP Q2: 12.8K PTD: 430K Q2: 0.6K PTD: 46K See Page 14 See Page 15 *1MP includes Streamline HAMP SECOND QUARTER 2016 SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS SERVICER MINOR IMPROVEMENT NEEDED MODERATE IMPROVEMENT NEEDED Bank of America, N.A. CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDED Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. See page 17 for additional information and detailed results for this quarter. 2 Making Home Affordable Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Table of Contents PROGRAM UPDATES MHA Updates 4 HAMP PROGRAM RESULTS: HAMP Summary HAMP Modification Characteristics HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary Performance of Permanent HAMP Modifications Homeowners with Disqualified Modifications Drivers of HAMP Performance 5 6 7 8-9 9 10 OTHER MHA PROGRAMS: Post-Modification Counseling Principal Reduction Alternative 2MP Program HAFA Program Unemployment Program 11 12 13 14 15 RESULTS BY SERVICER: MHA Program Activity by Servicer and Investor Servicer Assessment Results 16 17-23 APPENDIX: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes Compliance Criteria Tested Terms and Methodologies End Notes HAMP Activity by State HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State HAMP Performance Data by Vintage HAMP Activity by MSA Note: For more information and quarterly updates about HHF, please visit the program website or the TARP Monthly Report to Congress. For information and quarterly updates about efforts taken by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) beyond their participation in MHA which is not reflected in this report please visit the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report. For information on efforts undertaken by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) please visit its website. A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 3 Making Home Affordable Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 MHA Program Updates • The Agency white paper, Guiding Principles for the Future of Loss Mitigation, lays out five principles that should be a foundation for future loss mitigation programs: accessibility; affordability; sustainability; transparency; and accountability. Click here to read the white paper in its entirety. • During the second quarter of 2016, Streamline HAMP modifications made up a significant proportion of overall new HAMP modification activity. Preliminary data suggests that Streamline HAMP is offering many borrowers who have not previously participated in an MHA program a new opportunity for a modification. • The MHA Servicer Assessment results for the second quarter of 2016 begin on page 17. Four servicers were rated as needing minor improvement, two were rated as needing moderate improvement, and one servicer was rated as needing substantial improvement. All servicers met Treasury’s benchmark on three metrics: assignment of a single point of contact, accuracy of eligibility decisions, and processing of interest rate step-up changes. However, some servicers still need to improve in the areas of timely evaluation of HAMP applications, accurate data used and reported to calculate incentives, proper identification and reporting of disqualified modifications, issuance of interest rate step-up notices and accurate income calculation. MHA Program Activity1,2 Program-to-Date MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started2 Q2 2016 Q1 2016 2,036,639 45,258 41,364 HAMP Tier 1 1,441,295 9,842 10,458 HAMP Tier 2 172,630 14,031 13,871 7,811 7,811 0 GSE Standard Modifications (SAI) 293,334 7,844 8,161 Treasury FHA and RD HAMP 121,569 5,730 8,874 2MP Modifications Started 159,110 2,311 2,116 HAFA Transactions Completed 430,166 12,784 13,539 UP Forbearance Plans Started 46,126 573 563 2,672,041 60,926 57,582 Cumulative Activity Quarterly Trending of MHA Permanent Modifications Started & Estimated Number of Loans 60+ Days Delinquent Permanent Modifications (Thousands) 80 2.5 60 2.0 40 20 0 1.5 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 HAMP TIER 1 NON-GSE HAMP TIER 1 GSE HAMP TIER 2 GSE SAI FHA/RD-HAMP 60+ Days DLQ Q1 2016 * Delinquency data is an estimate derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association Quarterly National Delinquency Survey. Delinquent Loans (Millions) Streamline HAMP Q2 2016 STREAMLINE HAMP 4 Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 HAMP Summary All Trials Started3 Trial Modifications* 2,444,752 Tier 1 2,217,961 Tier 2 201,955 Streamline HAMP 24,836 Active Trials 43,605 103,688 Trial Modifications Cancelled Since Verified Income Requirement** 1,621,736 All Permanent Modifications Started Permanent Modifications Permanent Modifications Disqualified (Cumulative)*** 538,845 Active Permanent Modifications 976,891 * The total number of Trials Started and Trials Cancelled decreased as a result of servicer data corrections reported in the current quarter. ** When Treasury launched HAMP in the spring of 2009 and In an effort to provide assistance to struggling homeowners as soon as possible, servicers were not required to verify a homeowner’s income prior to commencing a trial modification. This resulted in many trials being cancelled if the homeowner could not ultimately provide the requisite documentation. Beginning in June 2010, servicers were required to verify a homeowner’s income prior to offering trial modifications, which substantially reduced the number of trial cancellations. A total of 675,723 trials started before June 2010 have been cancelled. A cumulative 779,411 trials have been cancelled program-to-date. *** Does not include 99,784 loans paid off and 6,216 loans withdrawn. Outcome for Homeowners Who Did Not Receive a HAMP Modification While not all homeowners qualify for HAMP, many have found alternative solutions to their delinquency. For homeowners who were not approved for a HAMP trial modification, or for those whose HAMP trial modifications were cancelled: • 58% received an alternative modification or resolved their delinquency. • 23% were referred to foreclosure. Status of Homeowners Not Accepted for a HAMP Trial Modification or Those Whose HAMP Trial Modification was Cancelled 2% 3% Action Pending 21% 2% Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 3% 36% Borrower Current / Loan Payoff Alternative Modification / Payment Plan Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu 14% Foreclosure Starts 23% Source: Survey data from large servicers4 Foreclosure Completions 5 Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Select HAMP Modification Characteristics* Aggregate payment savings to homeowners who received HAMP first lien permanent modifications are estimated at more than $44 billion program-to-date, compared with unmodified mortgage obligations. HAMP modifications follow a series of waterfall steps that include capitalization, interest rate adjustment, term extension, and principal forbearance/forgiveness. HAMP has two evaluation tiers: • Under HAMP Tier 1, servicers apply the modification steps in sequence until the homeowner’s postmodification front-end debt-to-income (DTI) ratio is 31%. The impact of each modification step can vary to achieve the target of 31%. • Under HAMP Tier 2, servicers apply the modification steps simultaneously to achieve a post-modification DTI that falls within an allowable range (subject to investor restrictions). HAMP Tier 2 applies to non-GSE mortgages only. *HAMP modification characteristics reflect data at the date of modification. Includes only Tier 1 and Tier 2 data. Modification Steps for Permanent Modifications Homeowner Characteristics All permanent modifications reflect some combination of the following modification steps: Characteristic Tier 1 Tier 2 All Median Monthly Gross Income $3,912 $5,001 $4,001 566 560 565 $154,000 $175,000 Modification Step Tier 1 Tier 2 All Interest Rate Reduction 95.7% 70.2% 93.0% Median Credit Score Term Extension 60.2% 85.9% 62.9% Median Property Value $177,900 Principal Forbearance 31.2% 32.3% 31.3% Select Median Permanent Modification Characteristics Loan Before After Characteristic Modification Modification Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio Median Decrease Additional HAMP Tier 2 Characteristics HAMP Tier 2 provides another modification opportunity for struggling homeowners who do not qualify for a HAMP Tier 1 modification, or for those who lose good standing (by missing three payments) on their HAMP Tier 1 modification. Of the HAMP Tier 2 trial modifications started: Tier 1 43.8% 31.0% -13.4 pct pts Tier 2 28.1% 21.0% -6.6 pct pts All 42.9% 31.0% -12.3 pct pts • 28% were previously in a HAMP Tier 1 trial or permanent modification. • 10% were previously evaluated for HAMP Tier 1 and did not meet eligibility requirements. • 6% were non-owner-occupied properties. Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio Tier 1 67.3% 50.3% -13.7 pct pts Tier 2 44.2% 36.7% -6.7 pct pts All 64.8% 48.5% -12.6 pct pts Monthly Housing Payment** Tier 1 $1,381.46 $813.46 ($499.07) Tier 2 $1,028.32 $663.06 ($331.51) All $1,345.07 $798.33 ($476.03) **Excludes the impact of any interest rate increases and re-amortization of capitalized homeowner incentives which may begin to occur after the fifth year of the HAMP Tier 1 modification. 6 Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary The HAMP Tier 1 modification was designed to provide a modification that would reduce their monthly mortgage payment to an affordable level, approximately 36% of the median before-modification payment. Under HAMP Tier 1, servicers apply a uniform loan modification waterfall to achieve a monthly mortgage payment of 31% DTI: capitalization, principal forgiveness (optional), interest rate reduction, term extension, principal forbearance. o The interest rate is reduced in increments to achieve the target 31% DTI with an interest rate floor of 2%. o After five years, the interest rate may begin to increase 1% per year (or less) until the Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS) rate at time of modification is reached (PMMS averaged 5.04% in 2009 and 3.59% in Q2 2016), at which time the interest rate will be fixed for the remaining loan term. 80% of HAMP Tier 1 homeowners will experience an interest rate increase after five years. o The first interest rate increase went into effect in Q3 2014 for the earliest group of HAMP modifications. o The majority of HAMP homeowners will experience two to three interest rate increases. o Homeowners who received a modification in 2009-2011 are more likely to experience three to four increases than homeowners who received a modification in 2012-2013, most of whom will experience two increases. o The median amount of the first monthly payment increase is $93, and the median monthly payment increase after the final interest rate increase is $206. Through June 2016, approximately 380,000 homeowners have experienced one interest rate step-up. An additional 185,000 have experienced a second rate step-up. o The rate increase does not appear to have an impact on the performance of these modifications. The percentage of modifications disqualifying in the month following the reset remains consistent with the months leading up to the reset, at less than or equal to 1%. • • • • Number of Interest Rate Increases by Quarter* 160,000 140,000 Number of Loans 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 First Increase Second Increase Third Increase Q3 2021 Q2 2021 Q1 2021 Q4 2020 Q3 2020 Q2 2020 Q1 2020 Q4 2019 Q3 2019 Q2 2019 Q1 2019 Q4 2018 Q3 2018 Q2 2018 Q1 2018 Q4 2017 Q3 2017 Q2 2017 Q1 2017 Q4 2016 Q3 2016 Q2 2016 Q1 2016 Q4 2015 Q3 2015 Q2 2015 Q1 2015 Q4 2014 Q3 2014 0 Fourth Increase * As of June 2016. Assumes no future re-defaults of HAMP Tier 1 modifications. See Appendix 6 for additional information on HAMP Tier 1 interest rate increases by state. 7 Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Performance of HAMP Permanent Modifications Differences in modification characteristics contribute to differences in the performance of HAMP modifications. Those characteristics can also affect the performance of certain vintages and contribute to differences in performance between HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2. The tables below show the performance of HAMP permanent modifications at various seasoning points for those modifications that have aged to, or past, the number of months noted. It is important to note that far fewer loans have reached these seasoning points for HAMP Tier 2, which was introduced several years after HAMP Tier 1. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 3 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 2.1% 6.7% 16.3% 22.9% 28.8% 33.3% 37.6% 41.1% 43.6% 46.0% 47.9% 1.7% 6.7% 15.6% 22.7% 28.0% 32.6% 36.6% 39.3% 41.6% 43.6% 45.6% 1.2% 5.3% 12.7% 18.9% 23.8% 27.3% 30.0% 32.5% 34.6% 36.5% 39.9% 1.0% 4.3% 10.3% 15.3% 19.1% 22.1% 24.6% 26.7% 29.6% 32.0% 0.8% 3.8% 9.4% 14.0% 17.2% 19.7% 22.2% 24.0% 1.1% 4.6% 10.5% 14.9% 17.9% 19.5% 1.3% 5.1% 11.4% 15.8% HAMP Tier 1 HAMP Tier 2 % of Disqualified HAMP Tier 1 Modifications5 # Months Post Modification % of Disqualified HAMP Tier 2 Modifications5 # Months Post Modification 3 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 N/A 2012 2013 2014 2015 1.3% 5.5% 17.5% 23.3% 28.8% 32.2% 34.6% 37.7% 1.8% 7.7% 17.0% 24.3% 28.6% 32.0% 34.5% 40.6% 1.6% 6.9% 15.9% 22.3% 27.3% 31.1% 1.7% 7.8% 17.4% 22.8% HAMP Tier 1 Performance by Investor Portfolio Private 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 24 30 36 42 48 1.3% 5.5% 13.1% 19.2% 24.1% 28.1% 31.8% 35.1% 38.2% 41.0% 44.3% ALL 1.6% 7.4% 16.7% 23.1% 28.1% 31.9% 34.5% 38.8% With Prior Tier 1 Modification 60% 18 Q2 2016 1.1% ALL Modifications that were previously modified under HAMP Tier 1 have a higher likelihood of disqualifying from the subsequent Tier 2 modification. 90+ Day Delinquency Rate 90+ Day Delinquency Rate GSE Q1 2016 1.2% 6.2% Q2 2016 1.0% HAMP Tier 2 Performance by Prior Modification History Modifications of private label security loans have the highest delinquency rates, followed by modifications of portfolio loans and GSE loans. 12 Q1 2016 0.9% 5.1% 54 60 Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification See Appendix 7 for additional information on HAMP performance by vintage. Without Prior Tier 1 Modification 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12 18 24 30 36 Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 42 8 Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Incremental Performance of HAMP Modifications over Time The longer homeowners remain in HAMP without defaulting, the less likely they are to default on their mortgage in the future. For example, the percent of loans active in month 12 that disqualified by month 15 is lower than the percent of loans active in month 6 that disqualified by month 9. Conditional Re-default Rate for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Modifications by Modification Year (% of Active Loans) 3-Month Re-default Rate 6% 2009 2010 2011 5% 2012 4% 2013 2014 3% 2015 2% 1% 0% 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification Note: A modification's inclusion in the 3-month re-default rate calculation is conditional on the modification being active at the start of the 3-month period being measured. Homeowners with Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications Homeowners now have alternatives due to industry-wide changes instituted since the launch of HAMP. In addition, 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 prohibited from commencing foreclosure proceedings until the homeowner is evaluated for other loss mitigation actions. The majority of homeowners who disqualify from a HAMP permanent modification receive an alternative to foreclosure or resolve their delinquency. Homeowners can also take advantage of other MHA and/or government sponsored assistance programs. Of the homeowners who have missed three payments, and therefore disqualified from HAMP, approximately 25% have been referred to foreclosure. Status of Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications 6% 4% 19% Action Pending Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 17% Borrower Current / Loan Payoff Alternative Modification / Payment Plan 6% Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu Foreclosure Starts Foreclosure Completions 14% 34% Source: Survey data from large servicers3 9 Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Drivers of Performance for HAMP Tier 1 and HAMP Tier 2 Modifications The most significant factor driving HAMP modification performance is the amount of the reduction in the monthly mortgage payment, followed by the length of the homeowner’s delinquency at the start of the trial modification and the homeowner’s credit score at the time of modification. Performance by Monthly Payment Reduction Payment reduction is strongly correlated with permanent modification sustainability. For modifications seasoned 24 months, fewer than 15% of modifications with a monthly payment reduction greater than 50% have been disqualified due to missing three payments, compared to a disqualification rate of more than 38% where the payment had been cut by 20% or less. <=20% 20%-30% 30%-40% 40%-50% >50% 90+ Day Delinquency Rate 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification Performance by Credit Score at the Time of Modification Homeowners with credit scores between 580-619 at the time of modification experienced a 19% re-default rate in the subsequent 24 months, compared to a rate of 10% for homeowners whose credit scores were above 660. < 580 580 - 619 620 - 660 Performance by Delinquency at Trial Start Homeowners who were 31 to 90 days delinquent at the start of the HAMP trial period experienced a 22% redefault rate in the subsequent 24 months, compared to 28% for homeowners whose delinquency was between 121 and 210 days at trial start. 60% 90+ Day Delinquency Rate 60% 90+ Day Delinquency Rate <= 30 Days 91 - 120 Days > 210 Days > 660 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 31 - 90 Days 121 - 210 Days 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 10 Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Post-Modification Counseling Since March 2014, Treasury has required certain HAMP participating servicers to offer free financial counseling to homeowners with non-GSE loans who are either entering a HAMP trial modification, or are in a permanent HAMP modification and are determined to be at risk of re-default. The counseling is designed to help homeowners stay in their modification by addressing the homeowner’s current overall financial situation and the financial hardship that caused the homeowner to default on his or her mortgage loan. Through June 2016, participating servicers have made nearly 477,000 referrals to financial counseling. Of these: • 54% are permanent modifications considered by the servicers to be at risk of disqualifying from HAMP, and 46% are new trial modifications. • More than 34,000 referrals started financial counseling resulting in an overall take-up rate of 7.2%. Counseling Referral Activity by Servicer At-Risk New Trials 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Bank of CitiMortgage, JPMorgan Nationstar Ocwen Loan Select Wells Fargo America, N.A. Inc. Chase Bank, Mortgage LLC Servicing, LLC Portfolio Bank, N.A. N.A. Servicing, Inc. % of Referrals Who Take Up Counseling 3% 10% 15% 2% 6% 8% 9% Other Servicers 9% Note: Data on Post-Modification Counseling is collected from sixteen servicers via survey. Additionally, servicer take-up rates will vary due to timing of referrals and individual servicer program design. 11 Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 The HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative The HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA) has broadened the use of principal reduction in mortgage modifications as a tool to help underwater homeowners. Servicers of non-GSE loans are required to evaluate the benefit of principal reduction under HAMP PRA for mortgages with a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio greater than 115% when evaluating a homeowner for a HAMP modification. While servicers are required to evaluate homeowners for principal reduction, they are not required to reduce principal as part of the modification. Under HAMP, servicers provide principal reduction on HAMP modifications in two ways: • Under HAMP 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. • 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. HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Modifications with Earned Principal Reduction Under PRA6 HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Modifications with Upfront Principal Reduction Outside of PRA Total HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Modifications with Principal Reduction 217,572 156,941 53,669 38,365 271,241 195,306 $65,635 $52,500 $62,369 32.2% 18.0% 30.4% $19,181,682,562 $3,471,320,869 $22,653,003,431 Trials Started with Principal Reduction as a % of Eligible Loans All Permanent Modifications Started Active Permanent Modifications Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent Modifications Started7 Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent Modifications Started (%)8 Total Outstanding Principal Balance Reduced on Permanent Modifications Started7 90% 84% 80% 71% 70% 61% 60% 50% 53% 43% 42% 65% 77% 77% 74% 72% 73% 65% 60% 76% 73% 65% 69% 70% 71% 72% 60% 61% 64% 67% 53% 69% 71% 70% 71% 71% 70% 60% 61% 61% 64% 64% 70% 46% 40% 30% 20% Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 Tier 1 PRA Tier 2 PRA Tier 1 All Principal Reduction Tier 2 All Principal Reduction Modification Characteristics: HAMP vs. HAMP with Principal Reduction All Tier 1 and Tier 2 HAMP Modifications Permanent Modifications – Median LTV ratio: 115.6% - Before Modification 115.0% - After Modification Permanent Modifications – Median Before Modification Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio: 42.9% - Front-End DTI 64.8% - Back-End DTI Total Tier 1 and Tier 2 HAMP Modifications with Principal Reduction 141.0% 105.0% 42.1% 54.0% 12 Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 The Second Lien Modification Program The Second Lien Modification Program (2MP) provides additional assistance to homeowners in a first lien permanent modification who have an eligible second lien with a participating servicer, including second liens with a qualifying first lien modified under the GSEs’ Standard Modification program. This assistance can result in a modification of the second lien, as well as a full or partial extinguishment of the second lien. Second lien modifications follow a series of steps that may include capitalization, interest rate reduction, term extension, and principal forbearance or forgiveness. All Second Lien Modifications Started (Cumulative)* 159,110 Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien Extinguishments 47,079 Active Second Lien Modifications** 81,011 Active Second Lien Modifications Involving Partial Lien Extinguishments 10,624 * Includes 7,905 loans that have a qualifying first lien GSE Standard Modification. ** Includes 9,393 Loans in active non-payment status whereby the 1MP modification has disqualified from HAMP. As a result, the servicer is no longer required to report payment activity on the 2MP modification. 2MP Modification Characteristics Median Monthly Payment Reduction: Second lien official modifications Debt Extinguishment: HAMP homeowners receiving partial or full extinguishment Reduction on second lien only $152 Total Outstanding Principal Balance Extinguished Combined first and second lien reduction $767 % of total monthly payment 41% Top Three States by Activity: Percent of total 2MP modifications started Second lien full extinguishments $3.5B California 33% 10% Combined first and second lien reduction $965 Florida % of total monthly payment 51% New York 7% Estimated Eligible 2nd Liens9 2MP Participating Servicer Name 2MP Modifications Started Current Estimated Eligible 2nd Liens Bank of America, N.A. 37,468 2,728 CitiMortgage, Inc. 20,334 2,502 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 43,866 1,206 9,212 1,218 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 24,410 3,850 Other Servicers 23,820 2,261 159,110 13,765 Nationstar Mortgage LLC Total Note: Only five of the seven largest SPA servicers participate in 2MP. 13 Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) Program offers incentives and a streamlined process for homeowners looking to exit their homes or sell a rental property through a short sale or deed-in-lieu (DIL) of foreclosure. HAFA has established important homeowner protections and an industry standard for streamlined transactions. Effective November 2012, the GSEs revised their Standard HAFA program to align with Treasury’s HAFA program. In HAFA transactions, homeowners who need to relocate: • Follow a streamlined process for short sales and DIL transactions that requires no verification of income (unless 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; and • Receive $10,000* in relocation assistance at closing. *Prior to February 1, 2015, homeowners received $3,000. HAFA Activity by Investor Type Participating servicers must consider all homeowners denied for HAMP for a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure through the HAFA program. However, individual investors can impose additional eligibility requirements. Private Short Sale GSE Total 150,526 51,847 169,178 371,551 10,262 4,452 43,901 58,615 160,788 56,299 213,079 430,166 Deed-in-Lieu Total Transactions Completed Portfolio Characteristics of Non-GSE HAFA Activity Non-GSE HAFA Debt Relief & Release of Subordinate Liens Through HAFA, homeowners can be relieved of significant unpaid principal balances. Median Unpaid Principal Balance Before HAFA $272,323 Median Sales Price $165,000 Median Debt Relief $122,187 Median Debt Relief as % of UPB Total Debt Relief (cumulative) 46% $28.3B In addition to satisfying the primary mortgage debt, as part of a HAFA short sale or deed-in-lieu the homeowner must be fully released from liability for subordinate liens. % of HAFA transactions completed that included release of a homeowner’s subordinate liens Total subordinate liens released (cumulative) In 14% of HAFA transactions completed, the homeowner began a HAMP Tier 1 or Tier 2 trial modification but later requested a HAFA agreement or was disqualified from HAMP. Non-GSE HAFA Activity by State Top Three States by HAFA Activity: % of HAFA Transactions Completed California 34% Florida 17% Arizona 5% 40% $570.3M 14 Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 The Home Affordable Unemployment Program The Home Affordable Unemployment Program (UP) provides assistance to homeowners who are unable to make their mortgage payments as a result of unemployment. Unemployed homeowners can receive 12 months of forbearance, during which mortgage payments are reduced or suspended, allowing homeowners to seek employment without fear that they will lose their homes to foreclosure. All UP Forbearance Plans Started 46,126 UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required 39,334 UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required 6,792 UP Activity by State Top Three States by UP Activity: % of UP Forbearance Plans Started California 24% Florida 7% Illinois 5% Status of Homeowners Who Completed an UP Forbearance Plan 3% 1% 3% 14% Foreclosure Started 32% 1% Foreclosure Completed Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu Alternative Modification / Payment Plan UP Forbearance Plan Extension 22% New HAMP Trial Borrower Current / Loan Paid Off Other* 24% *Other dispositions include Bankruptcy, Charge-Off, and Action Pending. 15 Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Making Home Affordable Program Activity by Servicer As of June 2016, there are 137 servicers that participate in Treasury’s MHA programs, but seven servicers make up nearly 85% of non-GSE HAMP modifications. Program activity for these servicers is provided below. HAMP Tier 1 Permanent Modifications HAMP Tier 2 Permanent Modifications PRA10 Permanent Modifications 2MP Modifications 101,701 6,192 5,859 37,468 49,638 35,569 4,441 3,718 20,334 2,340 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 165,727 4,315 24,781 43,866 37,882 Nationstar Mortgage LLC 176,370 22,003 10,834 9,212 10,034 Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 253,043 71,896 104,214 N/A 27,369 95,969 23,492 17,652 N/A 21,307 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 202,509 11,175 31,093 24,410 41,945 Other Servicers 410,407 29,116 19,421 23,820 26,572 1,441,295 172,630 217,572 159,110 217,087 Servicer Bank of America, N.A. CitiMortgage, Inc. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Total HAFA11 non-GSE Transactions Completed HAMP Permanent Modifications by Investor HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Permanent Modifications Servicer GSE Private Portfolio Total Bank of America, N.A. 39,314 50,317 18,262 107,893 CitiMortgage, Inc. 17,126 9,128 13,756 40,010 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 71,098 57,436 41,508 170,042 114,072 76,333 7,968 198,373 34,991 267,936 22,012 324,939 686 101,399 17,376 119,461 82,081 43,646 87,957 213,684 Other Servicers 294,525 82,447 62,551 439,523 Total 653,893 688,642 271,390 1,613,925 Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 16 Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Making Home Affordable Servicer Assessments Background Since the MHA Program’s inception in the spring of 2009, Treasury has monitored the performance of participating mortgage servicers. Freddie Mac, acting as Treasury’s compliance agent, has created a separate division known as Making Home Affordable–Compliance (MHA-C), which evaluates servicers’ compliance with MHA guidelines through regular compliance reviews. MHA-C examines as many as 60 compliance criteria (see Appendix 2) and tests between 400 and 600 loan files (per servicer, for the largest servicers) each quarter. Loan samples are randomly selected for testing from two sources: the MHA transactions reported by each servicer into the MHA system of record and the servicer’s records of non-performing loans. This approach provides comprehensive insight into how each servicer is implementing MHA programs. This includes, for example, whether the servicer is properly identifying, contacting and evaluating borrowers who are potentially eligible for MHA, as well as the accuracy and timeliness of the MHA data reported by the servicer. MHA-C reports the results of each compliance review to Treasury and the servicer. For identified instances of noncompliance, Treasury requires servicers to take remedial actions which include, but are not limited to: identifying and re-evaluating any affected loans, performing retroactive analysis when an issue is potentially systemic, and enhancing the effectiveness of internal controls. It is important to note that servicer participation in MHA is voluntary, based on a contract with Fannie Mae as financial agent on behalf of Treasury. 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 noncompliance, 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 permanent modifications under HAMP and completed transactions under HAFA. MHA Servicer Assessments In 2011, Treasury began publishing quarterly servicer assessments for the large servicers participating in MHA to improve transparency and drive servicers to improve their performance. The assessments highlight the results of MHA compliance reviews and rate servicers on the level of improvement needed. In addition, the assessments include program data reported by servicers into the MHA system of record. These program results are key indicators of how timely and effectively servicers assist eligible homeowners and report program data to Treasury. The assessments do not rate the servicer based on program results, but compare each servicer’s program results for a given quarter against the other large servicers participating in the program. Treasury has periodically enhanced the assessments to focus on new or emerging areas of interest, provide additional insight into the impact of servicer performance on homeowners’ experience, and foster further improvement in servicer performance. The most recent changes, effective the second quarter of 2015, included: the addition of metrics that address timely evaluation of borrowers for HAMP, accuracy of interest rate step-up changes, and timeliness and completeness of interest rate step-up notices; the consolidation of two “second look” metrics; the removal of the non-approval metric; and tightened performance benchmarks. Each quarter, Treasury reviews the compliance results and ratings, the program results, and other relevant factors affecting servicer performance (including, but not limited to a servicer’s progress in remediating previously identified issues) in determining whether a servicer needs substantial, moderate or minor improvement to its overall performance under MHA. 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 withhold 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, not incentives paid to servicers for the benefit of homeowners or investors. Please refer to Appendices 1 and 2 for more information concerning the MHA Servicer Assessments. 17 Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Second Quarter 2016 Servicer Assessment Summary Results Improvement Needed Servicer Name JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Minor Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Moderate Substantial CitiMortgage, Inc. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Bank of America, N.A. The table above summarizes the results of the MHA Servicer Assessments for the second quarter of 2016. The compliance and program results for the individual servicers can be found on the following pages. After considering all relevant factors, including remediation of the issue related to income calculation, servicer incentives withheld from Bank of America, N.A. beginning last quarter will be released in September 2016. In addition, Treasury will recover the upfront servicer incentives for certain loans impacted by the income calculation issue. 18 Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Compliance Metrics Overview The metrics and benchmarks below reflect compliance areas tested and reported on across the large servicers to determine servicers’ adherence to MHA Program Requirements. Servicer results (see overleaf) reflect percentages of tests that did not have a desired outcome. Please refer to Appendix 1 for more information concerning the metrics described below. Category Identifying and Contacting Homeowners Assesses whether the servicer identifies and communicates appropriately with potentially eligible MHA homeowners. Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance Assesses whether servicer correctly evaluates homeowners' eligibility for MHA programs and communicates decisions timely. Program Management and Reporting Assesses whether the servicer has effective program management, submits timely and accurate program reports and information and whether the servicer accurately and timely communicates interest rate step-ups. Metric Single Point of Contact Assignment % Noncompliance Benchmark Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur that the servicer had assigned a Single Point of Contact to a homeowner in accordance with MHA guidelines 2.0% Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with or was unable to conclude on the servicer's MHA eligibility determination for applicable programs 2.0% Second Look % Noncompliance Income Calculation Error % Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income calculation differs from the servicer's by more than 5% for applicable programs 2.0% Timely HAMP Evaluation % Noncompliance Percentage of loans reviewed for which MHA-C determined the servicer did not complete the evaluation within the prescribed time frame for reasons within the servicer’s control 2.0% Incentive Payment Data Errors Average percentage of differences in calculated incentives resulting from data discrepancies between servicer files and the MHA system of record for applicable programs 2.0% Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with servicer's processing of defaulted HAMP modifications, in accordance with MHA guidelines 2.0% Interest Rate Step-Up Changes Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C noted discrepancies between the terms of the interest rate stepup in the official modification agreement and payment application in the loan payment history 5.0% Interest Rate Step-Up Notices* Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C noted that the interest rate step-up notices sent by the servicer were not in accordance with MHA guidelines 5.0% 19 Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Second Quarter 2016 Compliance Results Single Point of Second Contact Look % Assignment % NonNoncompliance compliance Servicer BENCHMARK Bank of America, N.A. CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 5.0% 5.0% Servicer Results 0.0% 1.7% 9.0% 4.7% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% Rating *** *** * ** ** *** *** *** Servicer Results 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 14.5% 2.0% 0.0% Rating *** *** *** *** *** * *** *** Servicer Results 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Servicer Results 0.0% 1.6% 1.0% 0.0% 1.3% 5.3% 0.0% 6.8% Rating *** *** *** *** *** * *** ** Servicer Results 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.1% 2.0% 2.0% 3.8% Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Servicer Results 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 5.0% Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Servicer Select Portfolio Results Servicing, Inc. Rating Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Interest Rate Interest Rate Disqualified Timely HAMP Incentive Step-Up Step-Up Income Modification Evaluation % Payment Changes % Notices % Calculation % NonNonData Errors NonNonError % compliance compliance compliance compliance¤ Note: Beginning in Q2 2016, the Interest Rate Step-Up Notice Non-compliance assessment weightings were updated. The results of this metric may not be comparable to previous quarters. 20 Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Compliance Results Trending The trending table was expanded in the second quarter of 2015 to reflect the results across five assessment metrics. Servicer Bank of America, N.A. 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Single Point of Contact Assignment % Noncompliance 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2015 Q4 2016 Q1 2016 Q2 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% CitiMortgage, Inc. 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Nationstar Mortgage LLC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 4.2% 6.7% 0.0% 3.0% Second Look % Noncompliance (Combined)* 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.5% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.5% 0.4% 1.7% Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Bank of America, N.A. CitiMortgage, Inc. 15.2% 4.2% 3.7% 4.9% 2.5% 0.5% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.5% 0.9% 1.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 0.9% Nationstar Mortgage LLC 1.4% 0.0% 1.5% 6.9% 9.5% 6.4% 4.7% 0.4% 1.6% Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 1.6% 3.1% 1.0% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 0.6% 2.3% 2.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 3.4% 2.3% 1.8% 1.3% 0.8% Bank of America, N.A. 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Income Calculation Error % 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 6.0% 16.0% 11.0% 13.0% 9.0% CitiMortgage, Inc. 6.0% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Nationstar Mortgage LLC 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 5.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1.0% Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 6.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bank of America, N.A. 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% Incentive Payment Data Errors** 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 2.5% 2.6% 1.1% 2.6% 4.2% CitiMortgage, Inc. 1.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5% 1.0% 1.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Nationstar Mortgage LLC 1.7% 2.0% 0.2% 1.0% 1.5% 0.7% 3.3% 3.0% 1.3% Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 1.1% 0.6% 2.2% 1.2% 1.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% 0.2% 1.1% 0.4% 0.8% 0.3% 0.9% Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance 0.0% 3.0% 0.8% 0.8% 2.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% 5.0% 2.0% 2.3% 0.0% 14.5% Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Bank of America, N.A. CitiMortgage, Inc. 6.0% 12.0% 8.8% 2.3% 3.8% 6.0% 4.0% 1.5% JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Nationstar Mortgage LLC 0.0% 13.0% 6.8% 2.0% 0.8% 3.0% 0.0% 13.0% 5.3% Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 4.0% 1.0% 3.8% 1.8% 7.3% 3.8% 3.8% 2.3% 2.0% Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 0.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 0.0% 8.0% 6.8% 9.3% 2.8% 1.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% * ** Note: Prior to Q2 2015, this metric was previously two separate metrics, "Second Look % Disagree" and "Second Look % Unable to Determine”. For comparative purposes, we have combined the historical results of these two metrics into one percentage. Beginning with the Q2 2015 Assessment, the Incentive Payment Data Errors metric includes PRA testing. When calculating error percentages from prior quarter’s published figures, it may result in a slightly different percentage due to rounding. 21 Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Program Results Trials Aged 6+ Months (% of Active Trials)13 40% Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 30% 20% 10% Average # Aged Trials % of Active Trials 6+ Months This quarterly metric measures trials lasting six months or longer as a share of all active trials. These figures include trial modifications that have been cancelled or converted to permanent modifications by the servicer and are pending reporting to the program system of record. Additionally, servicers may process cancellations of permanent modifications for various 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. 0% Bank of America, CitiMortgage, JPMorgan Chase Nationstar N.A. Inc. Bank, N.A. Mortgage LLC Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Q3’15 182 262 244 556 437 145 381 Q4’15 205 276 216 637 194 183 388 Q1’16 187 187 172 730 162 139 437 Q2’16 203 110 228 606 152 121 405 Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases This quarterly metric measures servicer response time for homeowner inquiries escalated to MHA Support Centers. Effective February 1, 2011, a target of 30 calendar days was established for non-GSE escalation cases, including an estimated 5 days processing by the MHA Support Centers. The methodology for calculating average days to respond to escalated cases includes non-GSE cases escalated on or after February 1, 2011. Investor denial cases escalated prior to November 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. 30 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 25 # Days 20 15 10 5 0 Bank of America, N.A. CitiMortgage, JPMorgan Chase Nationstar Inc. Bank, N.A. Mortgage LLC Ocwen Loan Select Portfolio Servicing, LLC Servicing, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 22 Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Program Results Timely Reporting of Permanent Modifications (% Reported within the Month of Conversion) This quarterly metric measures the servicer’s ability to promptly report the conversion from a trial to a permanent modification. Untimely reporting of permanent modification conversions impacts incentive compensation, including the possible delay of homeowner incentives. In addition, it hinders the effectiveness of program monitoring and transparency. Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 % Reported Timely 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Bank of America, CitiMortgage, JPMorgan Chase Nationstar N.A. Inc. Bank, N.A. Mortgage LLC Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Missing Permanent Modification Status Reports (%) This quarterly metric measures the servicer’s ability to promptly report on the current status of permanent modifications. 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 the reporting of permanent modification status for loans where the homeowner was impacted by Hurricane Sandy or any other FDD. This revised guidance may impact missing permanent modification status reporting. 3.5% Q3 2015 3.0% Q4 2015 % Missing 2.5% Q1 2016 2.0% Q2 2016 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Bank of America, CitiMortgage, N.A. Inc. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 23 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) provides eligible homeowners the opportunity to lower their first lien mortgage payment through a loan modification. HAMP includes Tier 1, which offers modifications for Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) and non-GSE homeowners; HAMP Tier 2, which offers modifications for non-GSE homeowners; and Streamline HAMP, which offers modifications for non-GSE homeowners. HAMP Tier 2 is modeled after the GSE Standard Modification, which was created in October 2011 when the GSEs launched the Servicer Alignment Initiative (SAI). HAMP Tier 2 expands eligibility to include homeowners with properties currently occupied by a tenant as well as vacant properties the homeowner intends to rent. Streamline HAMP is modeled after the GSE Streamlined Modification, which was launched in July 2013. Streamline HAMP provides seriously delinquent homeowners the opportunity to receive a modification with no income documentation and reduced hardship documentation. Treasury FHA-HAMP provides first lien modifications for distressed homeowners in loans insured or guaranteed through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA introduced FHA-HAMP to provide assistance to borrowers with FHA-insured loans who are unable to meet their mortgage payments. Treasury pays incentives to servicers for FHA-insured first lien non-GSE mortgages that are modified under Treasury FHA-HAMP guidelines. RD-HAMP provides first lien modifications for distressed homeowners in loans guaranteed through the Rural Housing Service. The Second Lien Modification Program (2MP) provides modifications and extinguishments on second liens when there has been an eligible HAMP Tier 1, Tier 2, or GSE Standard Modification first lien modification, on the same property. The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) Program provides transition alternatives to foreclosure in the form of a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. The GSE Standard HAFA program is closely aligned with Treasury’s MHA HAFA program. The Home Affordable Unemployment Program (UP) provides temporary forbearance of mortgage principal to enable unemployed homeowners to look for a new job without fear of foreclosure. General MHA Program Notes: MHA Program Effective Dates: HAMP First Lien: April 6, 2009 PRA: October 1, 2010 2MP: August 13, 2009 HAFA: April 5, 2010 HAMP, PRA, Treasury FHA-HAMP, RD-HAMP, 2MP, and HAFA program data include activity reported into the HAMP system of record through the end of cycle for the current reporting month, though the effective date may occur in the following month. MHA First Lien Program Notes: MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started includes HAMP Tier 1, HAMP Tier 2, Streamline HAMP, GSE Standard Modifications and both Treasury FHA- and RD-HAMP. HAMP Tier 1 includes both GSE and non-GSE modifications. Treasury's FHA-HAMP and RDHAMP are similar to HAMP Tier 1. The GSEs do not participate in HAMP Tier 2; however, the GSE Standard Modification is similar to HAMP Tier 2. The GSEs do not participate in Streamline HAMP; however, the GSE Streamlined Modification is similar to Streamline HAMP. While Streamline HAMP is modeled after GSE Streamlined Modification, GSE Streamlined Modification data is not included in this report. GSE Standard Modification data is provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of June 2016. The GSEs undertake other foreclosure prevention activities beyond their participation in MHA, including the GSE Streamlined Modification, that are not reflected in this report. The latest Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report can be found at: www.FHFA.gov. Treasury FHA-HAMP Program Notes: The FHA undertakes foreclosure prevention activities beyond their participation in MHA that are not reflected in this report. Please refer to the latest edition of the Obama Administration’s Housing Scorecard for the total number of loss mitigation and early delinquency interventions FHA has offered since April 1, 2009. Please visit www.hud.gov to view the latest Housing Scorecard. 24 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes 2MP Program Notes: Number of modifications started is net of cancellations, which are primarily due to servicer data corrections. 2MP loans previously reported under top servicers that were transferred to or acquired by non-participating 2MP servicers are reflected in “Other Servicers.” Homeowners with an active first lien permanent modification and a second lien (2MP) modification realize a higher monthly payment reduction on their first lien compared to the overall population of first lien homeowners because of the higher median first lien unpaid principal balance. HAFA Program Notes: Unless otherwise noted, HAFA Transactions Completed 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 June 2016. It does not include other GSE short sale and DIL activity outside the HAFA program. Please refer to the latest Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report for the total number of short sales and DIL of foreclosure actions the GSEs have completed since 4Q 2008. Please visit www.FHFA.gov for the complete FHFA report. A short sale requires a third-party purchaser and cooperation of junior lien holders and mortgage insurers to complete the transaction. The debt relief represents the obligation relieved by the short sale or deed-in-lieu transaction and is calculated as the unpaid principal balance and allowable transactions costs less the property sales price. The allowable transaction costs may include release of any subordinate lien, homeowner relocation assistance, sales commission, and closing costs for taxes, title, and attorney fees. PRA Program Notes: Eligible loans include those receiving evaluation under HAMP PRA guidelines plus loans that did not require an evaluation but received principal reduction on their modification. Servicer Assessment Notes: Treasury’s foremost goal is to assist struggling homeowners who may be eligible for MHA. This population represents only a portion of each servicer’s overall mortgage servicing operation. Treasury’s compliance reviews solely assess compliance with MHA requirements established by Treasury under contracts with participating servicers. Treasury does not assess servicers’ compliance with rules or requirements established by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (the GSEs) or the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), among others. Moreover, Treasury cannot and does not assess compliance of servicing activities outside of MHA. Servicers’ compliance with laws or regulations relating to mortgage servicing are enforced by other Federal agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), or by state authorities. The servicer assessments have set a benchmark for providing detailed information about how mortgage servicers are performing against specific metrics. Although the compliance reviews that form the basis for the servicer assessments 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, the compliance reviews use “sampling” as a testing methodology. Sampling, an industry-accepted auditing technique, looks at a subset of a particular population of transactions, rather than the entirety of the population of transactions, to assess a servicer’s overall performance in that particular activity. 25 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes Compliance Metrics Single Point of Contact Assignment % Noncompliance: Servicers are required to assign certain delinquent homeowners to a Single Point of Contact (SPOC). This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur that the servicer had assigned a SPOC to a homeowner in a timely fashion and otherwise in accordance with MHA guidelines. For SPOC Assignment Noncompliance results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: assigning a SPOC to the homeowner, and correcting system and operational processes such that SPOCs are properly assigned to homeowners in a timely fashion. Second Look % Noncompliance: Second Look is a process in which MHA-C reviews potentially eligible loans not in a permanent modification, to assess the timeliness and accuracy of the servicer’s homeowner outreach and eligibility review in order to verify that the homeowner was properly considered, denied or deemed ineligible for receiving a permanent modification. This metric measures the combined percentage of loans reviewed in Second Look where MHA-C disagreed with a servicer’s solicitation efforts and/or eligibility review and for which MHA-C is not able to determine, based on the documentation provided, whether the homeowner was properly considered, denied or deemed ineligible for receiving a permanent modification. For Second Look Noncompliance results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: reconsidering homeowners for a modification if they were not properly solicited or incorrectly evaluated, retaining documentation to support solicitation efforts and eligibility determination, and, if applicable, engaging in systemic process remediation. All loans categorized as noncompliant remain on foreclosure hold until the servicer completes the appropriate corrective actions. Income Calculation Error %: Correctly calculating homeowners’ monthly income is a critical component of evaluating eligibility for MHA, as well as establishing an accurate modification payment. This metric measures how often MHA-C disagrees with a servicer’s calculation of a homeowner’s Monthly Gross Income, allowing for up to a 2% differential from MHA-C’s calculations. For Income Calculation Errors, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: correcting income errors, requiring the servicer to review their own income calculation accuracy, enhancing policies and procedures, and conducting staff training on income calculation. Timely HAMP Evaluation % Noncompliance: Servicers are required to evaluate borrowers for HAMP within 30 calendar days from the date a complete loss mitigation application is received. This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed for which MHA-C determined the servicer did not complete the evaluation within the prescribed time frame for reasons within the servicer’s control. For Timely HAMP Evaluation Noncompliance, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: correcting operational issues such that borrowers are evaluated in a timely manner, and implementing controls that allow servicer management to identify and prioritize HAMP eligibility determinations are at risk of being delayed. 26 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes Incentive Payment Data Errors: Treasury provides incentives for servicers, investors, and homeowners for permanent modifications completed under MHA. Although intended for different recipients, all incentives are initially paid to servicers to distribute to the appropriate parties. Data that servicers report to the program system of record is used to calculate the incentives due 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. Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance: Permanent modifications on which homeowners lose good standing are subsequently disqualified from the program. This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with a servicer’s processing of defaulted HAMP modifications, in accordance with MHA guidelines. For Disqualified Modification results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: correcting the status of improperly disqualified modifications and reporting the corrected data to the program system of record. Interest Rate Step-up Changes: In year five of a borrower’s modification, the interest rate on their modification may increase. This metric measures whether the step payment interest rate and principal and interest payment were applied in accordance with the terms of the Modification Agreement. For Interest Rate Step-Up Change results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: reversing incorrect payment applications within the servicer’s system and re-applying payments according to the terms of the Interest Rate Step-Up and correcting system and operational processes such that borrower payments are accurately applied according to the terms of the Interest Rate Step-Ups in the Modification Agreement. Interest Rate Step-up Notices: Servicers are required to send two notices of an Interest Rate Step-Up to the borrower prior to the first Step Payment Effective Date. The first notice must be sent at least 120 calendar days, but no more than 240 calendar days, before the initial payment is due at the adjusted level. An additional notice must be sent 60-75 days before the initial payment is due at the adjusted level. For subsequent adjustments, notice must be sent at least 60 calendar days, but not more than 120 calendar days, before the first payment is due at each adjusted level. This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed where the notices were not sent within the required timeframes and/or did not include the required elements. For Interest Rate Step-Up Notice results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to, correcting system and operational processes such that Interest Rate Step-Up Notices are sent within the required timeframes and updating notice templates to ensure that all required information is included in the Interest Rate Step-Up Notices sent to the borrower. Permanent modifications on which homeowners lose good standing are subsequently disqualified from the program. This metric 27 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric Identifying and Contacting Homeowners Criteria Tested HAMP Solicitation Second Lien Solicitation Review Type Second Look Directed Actions Second Look Initial Packages sent after Right Second Look Party Contact (RPC) Objective Servicer appropriately solicited borrowers for HAMP and that the servicer met the reasonable efforts requirements Servicer has solicited borrowers with second liens for which a HAMP modification exists on the first lien Servicer sent potentially eligible borrowers HAMP packages following RPC Timely SPOC Assignment Second Look Servicer assigned a Single Point of Contact and sent a SPOC assignment letter to potentially eligible borrowers following RPC Content of Borrower Notices Second Look Borrower Notices contained required information Timely Acknowledgement Letter sent Second Look Upon receiving any part of a HAMP package, servicer sent an Acknowledgement Letter to the borrower within the required time frame Accuracy of Incomplete Information Notice (IIN) sent, where applicable Second Look Upon receiving part of a HAMP Package but not all required information, servicer sent an Incomplete Information Notice to the borrower listing documentation still needed Timely mailing of IIN, where applicable Second Look Servicer sent Incomplete Information Notices within required time frame Validation of Tier 1 Denials Second Look Denials of Tier 1 HAMP modifications are valid Validation of Tier 2 Denials Second Look Denials of Tier 2 HAMP modifications are valid Second Lien Denials Second Look Denials of second lien modifications are valid Non-Approval Notice Second Look Servicer included correct denial reason in Non-Approval Notice and sent within 10 days of decision Denial Reporting Second Look Servicer reported correct denial reason to the HAMP Program Administrator Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance Criteria Tested Review Type Objective Dodd Frank Certification Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer Obtained a signed Dodd-Frank Certification from borrowers receiving a HAMP modification Accurate occupancy status Core Eligibility/Incentive Borrower occupancy status in the HAMP system of record is accurate Origination date Core Eligibility/Incentive Origination date of the mortgage is prior to January 1, 2009 Unpaid Principal Balance Core Eligibility/Incentive Pre-modification unpaid principal balance does not exceed program limits Completed Request for Mortgage Assistance or Hardship Affidavit Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer obtained a signed Request for Mortgage Assistance or Hardship Affidavit Approval Decision Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer made correct decision to approve the modification 28 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance Criteria Tested Completeness of full underwriting package Review Type Second Look, Core Eligibility/Incentive Objective Servicer obtained a completed package to underwrite modification Accuracy of Income calculation Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer correctly calculated borrower income Accurate HAMP Eligibility decision (approvals) Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer made correct decision to approve the modification Accurate HAMP Underwriting Core Eligibility/Incentive Accurate Escrow Analysis Core Eligibility/Incentive Property Valuation (AVM, BPO) Core Eligibility/Incentive obtained Accuracy of Trial Period Plan Core Eligibility/Incentive (TPP) Notice Servicer correctly underwrote the modification to ensure correct payment terms Servicer performed accurate analysis of borrower escrow to use in modification Servicer obtained appraisal or broker price opinion for the property Servicer sent accurate TPP Notices to borrowers entering a Trial modification Application of TPP payments Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately applied borrower TPP payments Recast Notices Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent the Recast Notice to the borrower within the required timeframe Accepted Recast Offer Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately processed the Accepted Recast Offer NPV model use/re-coding compliance Net Present Value Servicer NPV models provide accurate results consistent with the Treasury NPV model Accuracy of NPV inputs Net Present Value Servicer input accurate data into the NPV model Accuracy of Permanent Modification Agreement Core Eligibility/Incentive Permanent Modification Agreement includes correct terms including payment amount, interest rate, unpaid principal balance, and forbearance amount Core Eligibility/Incentive At time of conversion to permanent modification, servicer waived all late charges and other fees related to the delinquency of the original loan Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately applied payment amounts held in suspense at end of Trial Plan Second Look, Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately evaluated borrower for second lien modification Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately calculates second lien modification terms Second Look Servicer sent accurate Non-Approval Notices for denied second lien modifications within specified time frame Waiver of Late Charges & other Fees at conversion from TPP to Perm. Mod. Application of Unapplied Funds at end of TPP Accurate 2MP Eligibility Assessment Accurate calculation of 2MP TPP/Modification Terms Timely mailing and accuracy of 2MP Non-Approval Notice, where applicable Accurate HAFA Eligibility Assessment Second Look, Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer reviewed HAFA applications and makes appropriate eligibility decision Servicer obtained release of all liens on properties completing a HAFA short sale or deed-in-lieu HAFA - Release of Liens Core Eligibility/Incentive Escalated Cases Directed Actions Servicer timely and accurately resolved escalated case complaints Solicitation of Financial counseling notices Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer considered borrower for financial counseling by sending a notification with the TPP Timely mailing of 2MP TPPs Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent 2MP TPP’s within the required timeframe Timely mailing of HAFA Short Sale notices Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent HAFA Short Sale Notices within the required timeframe 29 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric Program Management and Reporting Criteria Tested HAMP Incentive Compensation Servicer, Borrower & Investor Review Type Core Eligibility/Incentive Application of Borrower Incentives Core Eligibility/Incentive Timely and accurate 120-Day Core Eligibility/Incentive Notice of Interest Rate Increase Timely and accurate 60-Day Notice Core Eligibility/Incentive of Interest Rate Increase Timely and accurate subsequent Core Eligibility/Incentive 60-Day Notice of Interest Rate Increase Accuracy of step rate increases Appropriate timing on reporting of denial to IR2 (i.e. at least 30 days after letter sent) Accurate reporting of HAMP Trials/Perm Mods to IR2 Appropriate notification to borrowers of Post-Modification Counseling 2MP Incentive Compensation Servicer, Borrower & Investor Accurate reporting of 2MP Trials/Perm Mods to IR2 HAFA Incentive Compensation Servicer, Borrower & Investor Accuracy of reporting of HAFA activity to IR2 Re-default and Loss of Good Standing Incentive compensation is accurate based on loan file documentation Servicer accurately applied borrower incentives to unpaid principal balance within 30 days of receipt Servicer sent accurate first notice of Interest Rate Increase between 120 and 240 days prior to first rate increase Servicer sent accurate second notice of Interest Rate Increase between 60 and 75 days prior to first rate increase Servicer sent accurate subsequent notice of Interest Rate Increase between 60 and 120 days prior to subsequent rate increase Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately calculated and implemented HAMP rate increases Second Look Servicer reported HAMP denials to the Program Administrator in accordance with program guidelines Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately reported modification information to the Program Administrator including all data used in calculating incentives Core Eligibility/Incentive Borrowers entering Trial Period Plans are notified of the availability of financial counseling Core Eligibility/Incentive Incentive compensation for second lien modifications is accurate Core Eligibility/Incentive Core Eligibility/Incentive Core Eligibility/Incentive Directed Actions, Core Eligibility/Incentive Pre-Foreclosure affirmation provided by Relationship Manager Directed Actions (SPOC) Accuracy of Foreclosure Referrals Directed Actions Certification provided to Foreclosure attorney Proper resolution of Escalated Cases Timely processing of escalated cases Validation of receipt and completeness of MHA Data for transferred loans by transferee servicer Timely processing of transferred Trial Period Plans Application of incentives for transferred modifications Objective Servicer reported accurate modification data to Program Administrator with respect to second lien modifications Incentive compensation for HAFA transactions is accurate based on loan file documentation Servicer reported accurate modification data to Program Administrator with respect to HAFA short sale and deed-in-lieu transactions Modifications that are disqualified from HAMP due to Loss of Good Standing or canceled from TPP are done so accurately and in a timely manner SPOC provided affirmation that all available loss mitigation options had been exhausted Foreclosure referrals meet the requirements of the MHA Handbook Directed Actions Servicer provided certification that HAMP modification had been explored and all other loss mitigation options had been exhausted Directed Actions Borrower complaints are resolved accurately Directed Actions Borrower complaints are resolved within prescribed time period or the borrower is notified appropriately of delays Transfer Testing Within 60 days of transfer, the transferee servicer validated the acquired loans contained all required MHA data Transfer Testing Transfer Testing Borrowers in Trial Period Plans as of the date of transfer were appropriately placed into Official Modifications Borrower incentives were applied correctly to unpaid principal balance of transferred loans where appropriate 30 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 3: Terms and Methodologies Average Delinquency at Trial Start: 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. Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio: 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. Disqualification: A permanent modification disqualifies from HAMP when the borrower misses the equivalent of three full monthly payments. Once disqualified, the borrower is no longer eligible to receive HAMP incentives. However, the terms of the permanent modification remain the same, and the servicer will continue to work with the borrower to cure the delinquency or identify other loss mitigation options. Servicers are required to report monthly payment information on HAMP modifications in the form of an Official Monthly Report (OMR). If a servicer does not report an OMR for a loan in a given month, the performance of that loan is not included in official Treasury reporting for that month. In addition, reported loan counts may shift from prior reports due to servicer data corrections. Eligible Loans: Homeowners with HAMP eligible loans, which include conventional loans that were originated on or before January 1, 2009; excludes loans with current unpaid principal balances greater than current conforming loan limits-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; 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. Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio: Ratio of housing expenses (principal, interest, taxes, insurance and homeowners association and/or condo fees) to monthly gross income. Monthly Housing Payment: Principal and interest payment. 31 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 4: End Notes Note # Section End Notes 1 MHA Program Updates (page 4) MHA Program Activity includes Streamline HAMP only where specified (on pages 2, 4, and 5). Otherwise, total HAMP activity data is HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2, including HAMP PRA. 2 MHA Program Updates (page 4) MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started includes GSE Standard Modifications (GSE SAI) but not GSE Streamlined Modifications. For details on all GSE programs, visit http://www.FHFA.gov/. 3 HAMP Program Results (page 5) As reported into the HAMP system of record by servicers. Excludes Treasury FHA-HAMP modifications. Totals reflect impact of servicing transfers. Servicers may enter new trial modifications into the HAMP system of record at any time. HAMP Program Results (page 5) Data is as reported by servicers for actions completed through the end of the quarter and reflects the status of homeowners as of that date; 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. Excludes cancellations and disqualifications pending data corrections and loans otherwise removed from servicing portfolios. HAMP Program Results (page 8) Servicers did not submit 1.5% of the total required OMRs for loans aged up to 60 months in the current reporting period. In addition, reported loan counts may shift from prior reports due to servicer data corrections. For example, if it was assumed that all unreported OMRs reflect either a current payment status or the maximum number of missed payments based on the most recently submitted OMR, the re-default rate for Tier 1 permanent modifications that have aged 60 months may range between 43.9% and 44.1%. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Other MHA Programs (page 12) Other MHA Programs (page 12) Other MHA Programs (page 12) Other MHA Programs (page 13) Results by Servicer (page 16) 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. Principal amount reduced as a percentage of before-modification UPB, excluding capitalization. Survey data indicates that program to date, 401,484 qualifying first lien modifications have been matched with a second lien. Of these matched second liens, approximately 57% are found to be ineligible for a 2MP modification. The most common reasons for ineligibility are: cancellation or failure of a trial or permanent first lien HAMP modification; extinguishment of the second lien prior to evaluation for 2MP; failure of a 2MP trial modification; and some homeowners with eligible second liens decline to participate in 2MP. 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. This data includes HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Modifications. Results by Servicer (page 16) Includes non-GSE activity under the MHA program only. Servicer GSE program data not available. Results by Servicer (page 22) 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 Aged Trials. As a result, fluctuations are expected in this population. 32 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 5: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by State State AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY PR Nationwide* * Includes U.S. Territories Trial Modifications Started 1,295 17,441 6,811 92,477 508,251 32,110 33,980 4,372 8,159 297,752 92,225 8,866 7,387 8,939 125,538 27,173 7,180 11,257 17,385 55,445 79,840 7,117 71,641 37,355 28,440 10,802 2,892 50,681 498 3,996 10,642 86,995 8,815 54,377 125,222 61,086 7,912 26,602 62,239 11,662 26,559 1,049 30,293 84,592 19,398 57,646 2,152 49,317 24,790 3,799 1,255 6,159 2,419,916 Permanent Modifications Started 757 10,875 4,153 56,157 358,853 20,984 23,726 2,872 5,552 197,690 58,899 6,042 4,427 5,647 85,255 17,507 4,351 7,180 11,313 38,759 54,566 4,968 45,214 23,732 17,710 6,984 1,731 32,388 264 2,540 7,317 59,988 5,667 34,060 87,709 37,580 4,725 17,433 41,634 8,243 16,781 588 19,710 51,083 12,740 37,828 1,553 33,632 16,476 2,319 778 4,949 1,613,925 Median Monthly Payment Reduction $477.13 $262.20 $246.31 $437.69 $704.81 $404.28 $517.87 $534.72 $402.26 $462.47 $354.75 $782.68 $249.80 $366.91 $494.78 $260.63 $284.62 $264.39 $280.22 $571.01 $558.16 $382.31 $340.64 $416.86 $291.16 $248.18 $388.78 $299.65 $276.95 $261.30 $463.28 $617.74 $343.71 $521.84 $763.63 $291.03 $244.96 $448.26 $337.83 $529.34 $292.52 $259.46 $283.88 $279.77 $424.44 $476.89 $364.17 $497.56 $342.96 $298.05 $357.06 $282.48 $476.03 Median Monthly Payment Reduction % of PreModification Payment 31% 32% 32% 37% 36% 33% 37% 32% 32% 39% 36% 33% 33% 33% 40% 34% 33% 33% 33% 35% 34% 35% 37% 35% 35% 33% 32% 33% 31% 33% 34% 37% 33% 38% 38% 36% 33% 34% 34% 39% 33% 29% 34% 33% 32% 32% 34% 33% 36% 30% 30% 37% 35% 33 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 6: HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State Median Values State Monthly P&I Total Monthly Pre-Mod Monthly After Mod Payment Before Mod Pre-Mod P&I Payment Interest Income at After Mod UPB Monthly Increase at DTI Monthly P&I Increase after Rate Time of Mod P&I First Interest All Increases Rate Increase Final Monthly P&I Payment Reduction from Pre-Mod P&I AK 44.83% 6.8% $1,464.44 $4,200.00 $216,259.76 $857.29 $93.09 $174.02 -$401.03 AL 46.60% 6.8% $865.45 $2,261.26 $119,262.83 $495.22 $47.50 $96.59 -$239.54 AR 45.63% 6.6% $798.60 $2,123.40 $114,549.89 $458.12 $48.19 $99.93 -$207.28 AZ 49.47% 6.4% $1,191.62 $2,803.54 $178,186.13 $654.11 $77.97 $188.36 -$309.97 CA 48.74% 6.1% $1,941.89 $4,675.12 $306,851.57 $1,061.27 $134.81 $308.37 -$479.43 CO 46.49% 6.4% $1,235.07 $3,184.00 $189,016.20 $733.10 $80.36 $178.42 -$299.64 CT 45.49% 6.5% $1,456.02 $4,334.35 $210,544.16 $781.06 $90.69 $197.76 -$411.19 DC 47.88% 6.4% $1,710.06 $4,107.54 $275,123.22 $963.22 $120.21 $265.21 -$388.24 DE 47.08% 6.5% $1,280.69 $3,106.29 $195,418.00 $747.05 $83.16 $172.18 -$311.40 FL 47.54% 6.5% $1,191.42 $3,277.31 $170,922.07 $615.20 $74.86 $167.78 -$350.09 GA 47.43% 6.5% $1,004.50 $2,638.95 $143,383.04 $555.50 $61.50 $137.00 -$281.45 HI 49.02% 6.3% $2,428.58 $5,397.81 $394,627.47 $1,369.64 $175.09 $377.13 -$522.67 IA 44.43% 6.6% $774.30 $2,294.72 $107,873.80 $430.07 $44.67 $93.27 -$207.58 ID 48.53% 6.5% $1,147.55 $2,724.99 $170,531.98 $654.32 $73.68 $163.77 -$287.62 IL 47.03% 6.5% $1,277.60 $3,702.00 $178,576.50 $642.14 $78.09 $176.56 -$393.33 IN 46.06% 6.8% $813.75 $2,152.27 $109,693.08 $452.05 $44.52 $93.46 -$224.86 KS 44.49% 6.6% $897.75 $2,716.50 $126,272.14 $499.45 $51.31 $110.73 -$242.59 KY 45.64% 6.8% $813.07 $2,203.08 $112,155.24 $458.33 $45.91 $95.98 -$222.44 LA 45.55% 6.9% $892.38 $2,546.01 $123,128.06 $493.17 $50.85 $99.91 -$254.75 MA 47.02% 6.4% $1,656.81 $4,338.20 $249,906.66 $912.36 $107.74 $237.73 -$426.82 MD 46.85% 6.4% $1,671.24 $4,332.00 $259,548.71 $937.53 $113.34 $250.47 -$412.01 ME 46.59% 6.6% $1,135.32 $3,001.33 $163,168.18 $614.09 $69.61 $142.51 -$302.26 MI 46.87% 6.5% $954.22 $2,668.25 $129,744.10 $505.23 $54.14 $123.19 -$277.01 MN 46.09% 6.3% $1,202.03 $3,298.00 $178,405.41 $677.24 $76.39 $174.77 -$308.97 MO 46.04% 6.6% $879.76 $2,477.53 $123,212.20 $483.54 $50.89 $108.58 -$250.34 MS 46.41% 6.9% $810.69 $2,224.13 $110,571.42 $447.48 $44.76 $88.19 -$238.26 MT 46.79% 6.4% $1,262.50 $3,233.12 $192,089.87 $723.51 $80.88 $168.25 -$309.93 NC 46.41% 6.5% $945.80 $2,495.58 $133,399.55 $538.58 $55.93 $115.93 -$252.29 ND 42.23% 6.5% $882.50 $2,752.00 $133,588.18 $513.18 $54.44 $111.07 -$204.43 NE 43.70% 6.7% $772.53 $2,462.88 $108,241.19 $441.14 $44.64 $90.74 -$214.42 NH 43.97% 6.4% $1,342.22 $4,160.32 $197,827.66 $762.68 $84.35 $179.71 -$346.93 34 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 6: HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State Median Values State Monthly P&I Total Monthly Pre-Mod Monthly After Mod Payment Before Mod Pre-Mod P&I Payment Interest Income at After Mod UPB Monthly Increase at DTI Monthly P&I Increase after Rate Time of Mod P&I First Interest All Increases Rate Increase Final Monthly P&I Payment Reduction from Pre-Mod P&I NJ 45.19% 6.4% $1,700.89 $5,238.42 $249,550.00 $886.06 $109.73 $236.00 -$470.68 NM 47.25% 6.5% $1,061.07 $2,750.50 $155,812.51 $615.81 $67.21 $142.80 -$282.32 NV 50.12% 6.3% $1,368.51 $3,127.96 $207,762.48 $738.45 $91.27 $215.90 -$363.78 NY 47.04% 6.4% $2,081.92 $5,712.63 $312,598.63 $1,085.82 $137.27 $295.35 -$579.81 OH 45.42% 6.6% $820.34 $2,393.00 $110,412.89 $445.46 $45.44 $98.86 -$234.97 OK 44.75% 6.9% $771.24 $2,332.92 $105,659.22 $437.16 $42.70 $86.01 -$223.34 OR 46.64% 6.4% $1,322.30 $3,448.00 $206,499.21 $769.76 $90.81 $197.72 -$321.79 PA 45.20% 6.6% $1,079.41 $3,183.01 $151,190.43 $585.97 $63.33 $129.21 -$296.40 RI 47.47% 6.4% $1,360.96 $3,646.67 $196,373.70 $706.59 $84.94 $190.78 -$400.71 SC 46.70% 6.6% $957.10 $2,479.67 $136,731.15 $545.06 $57.51 $120.25 -$251.19 SD 43.95% 6.4% $949.56 $2,736.50 $137,917.43 $529.33 $58.19 $126.07 -$213.51 TN 47.00% 6.9% $872.62 $2,297.14 $117,934.32 $481.66 $47.77 $99.31 -$258.78 TX 43.16% 7.0% $853.30 $2,937.00 $117,779.74 $483.29 $48.07 $98.17 -$247.78 UT 47.63% 6.5% $1,366.94 $3,271.71 $211,052.21 $802.51 $92.57 $208.79 -$321.20 VA 46.65% 6.4% $1,589.81 $4,044.00 $247,735.63 $902.85 $107.06 $236.74 -$357.49 VT 45.99% 6.8% $1,140.71 $3,115.37 $168,035.09 $628.54 $71.61 $153.58 -$305.84 WA 46.41% 6.4% $1,510.18 $3,969.17 $240,728.43 $873.26 $106.12 $228.55 -$350.97 WI 45.12% 6.5% $985.03 $2,982.54 $137,518.75 $530.74 $58.50 $125.04 -$275.88 WV 46.53% 6.6% $1,064.24 $2,656.53 $154,430.35 $622.57 $62.88 $126.30 -$261.76 WY 46.15% 6.5% $1,301.51 $3,222.00 $187,352.21 $793.72 $79.61 $162.43 -$299.28 PR 50.99% 6.4% $766.63 $1,640.00 $103,412.12 $441.62 $44.06 $93.71 -$215.43 Nationwide* 47.30% 6.4% $1,442.49 $3,796.86 $214,196.19 $779.56 $92.61 $205.93 -$370.27 * Includes U.S. Territories 35 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage HAMP Tier 1 Mod. Effective in: # 2009Q3 2009Q4 2010Q1 2010Q2 2010Q3 2010Q4 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3 2011Q4 2012Q1 2012Q2 2012Q3 2012Q4 2013Q1 2013Q2 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 All 3,568 43,394 123,569 147,158 86,000 57,891 70,656 79,658 80,673 64,760 49,209 43,844 47,158 39,199 39,155 31,457 31,836 27,233 23,616 18,985 16,952 15,096 14,794 14,247 12,620 10,463 9,627 3,086 1,205,904 3 Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 6 12 60+ Days 90+ Days 10.7% 5.7% 4.2% 5.3% 5.1% 4.6% 2.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.4% 2.5% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 2.2% 2.6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.5% 3.7% 3.5% 3.8% 2.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.2% 3.2% 4.2% 3.9% 4.5% 1.9% 1.5% 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% # 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days 18 # 60+ Days 90+ Days 4,394 47,211 149,788 156,769 95,670 62,358 75,669 88,920 85,737 67,274 50,650 44,822 48,846 41,113 40,811 32,930 33,301 28,545 25,507 19,795 17,785 16,839 15,744 14,788 13,044 10,908 3,438 15.7% 10.2% 10.4% 12.2% 11.1% 8.9% 8.2% 9.4% 8.8% 6.9% 6.8% 7.7% 7.4% 6.3% 6.0% 6.5% 7.0% 6.3% 6.8% 7.8% 7.9% 7.0% 7.1% 9.0% 8.8% 8.3% 8.0% 10.6% 6.3% 6.1% 7.5% 7.1% 5.7% 5.1% 5.8% 5.6% 4.4% 4.1% 4.6% 4.6% 4.0% 3.5% 3.9% 4.2% 3.9% 3.9% 5.1% 5.3% 4.3% 4.2% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.1% 4,599 51,110 160,599 173,070 103,931 64,987 79,394 92,425 86,728 67,624 50,683 45,105 49,580 42,329 41,932 33,635 34,688 29,822 26,354 20,414 18,345 17,241 16,129 15,065 4,332 25.8% 20.4% 20.4% 19.6% 18.2% 18.4% 17.0% 16.2% 15.6% 14.7% 14.1% 13.6% 13.0% 12.3% 12.6% 11.8% 12.1% 12.2% 13.1% 13.0% 13.3% 13.7% 13.8% 14.8% 16.0% 21.1% 15.8% 16.1% 16.1% 14.5% 14.5% 13.6% 13.2% 12.3% 11.4% 10.9% 10.9% 10.1% 9.4% 9.6% 9.4% 9.2% 9.5% 10.3% 10.7% 10.5% 10.5% 10.7% 11.8% 12.5% 4,931 54,285 165,616 170,283 105,899 66,530 80,981 91,712 86,479 67,776 50,071 44,615 50,104 42,590 42,295 33,915 34,493 29,808 26,272 20,350 18,334 17,422 5,619 32.2% 25.4% 26.0% 27.8% 25.3% 24.0% 22.2% 23.2% 21.8% 19.3% 18.6% 18.9% 17.9% 16.3% 16.6% 16.5% 16.5% 16.0% 16.6% 17.7% 18.0% 17.6% 18.6% 28.9% 22.3% 22.4% 24.1% 21.9% 21.1% 19.2% 20.1% 18.9% 16.8% 15.9% 16.1% 15.1% 14.0% 13.9% 14.1% 14.0% 13.8% 14.3% 15.1% 15.4% 15.1% 15.8% 1,292,656 8.9% 5.5% 1,330,121 16.5% 13.1% 1,310,380 22.3% 19.2% Loan payment status is not reported by servicers after program disqualification (90+ days delinquent). Therefore, 90+ days delinquent loans are included in each of the 60+ and 90+ days delinquent metrics for all future reporting periods, even though some loans may have cured or paid off following program disqualification. In addition, once a loan is reported as paid off it is no longer reflected in future periods. 36 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage HAMP Tier 1 Mod. Effective in: 2009Q3 2009Q4 2010Q1 2010Q2 2010Q3 2010Q4 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3 2011Q4 2012Q1 2012Q2 2012Q3 2012Q4 2013Q1 2013Q2 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 All 24 # Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 36 48 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days 60 # 60+ Days 90+ Days 5,032 55,227 167,415 178,434 105,943 66,289 80,650 91,298 84,956 67,488 50,575 44,818 50,351 42,720 42,069 34,049 34,610 29,782 26,353 20,455 6,181 36.8% 31.6% 31.9% 31.1% 29.4% 29.5% 27.6% 27.3% 25.8% 23.4% 22.5% 22.1% 20.8% 19.9% 19.9% 19.1% 18.7% 19.1% 19.8% 20.1% 20.1% 33.5% 28.4% 28.7% 28.7% 26.8% 26.5% 24.9% 25.1% 23.4% 21.0% 20.0% 20.0% 18.5% 17.6% 17.7% 17.3% 16.9% 17.0% 17.7% 18.3% 17.9% 5,132 56,040 165,710 174,706 104,229 65,788 80,775 91,318 86,662 67,570 50,102 44,718 49,596 42,081 41,561 33,900 10,987 43.9% 39.7% 39.7% 39.3% 37.2% 36.3% 33.9% 33.2% 31.0% 28.5% 27.9% 27.0% 25.5% 24.2% 24.0% 23.3% 24.1% 41.7% 37.2% 37.5% 37.4% 35.3% 34.2% 31.9% 31.6% 29.2% 26.8% 26.0% 25.5% 24.0% 22.6% 22.4% 21.8% 22.5% 5,037 55,790 165,434 173,856 104,785 65,775 80,249 90,789 84,765 66,456 49,493 43,706 16,433 50.0% 44.9% 44.6% 43.8% 41.2% 40.4% 38.0% 37.2% 35.4% 32.3% 31.3% 30.6% 29.5% 48.3% 43.1% 42.9% 42.5% 39.8% 38.8% 36.5% 36.0% 34.2% 30.9% 30.0% 29.5% 28.4% 5,018 55,036 162,860 172,574 102,475 64,669 78,440 88,435 29,535 53.9% 48.9% 48.4% 47.2% 45.0% 43.7% 41.3% 40.8% 40.0% 52.4% 47.5% 47.2% 46.2% 43.9% 42.5% 40.3% 39.8% 39.1% 1,284,695 26.6% 24.1% 1,170,875 33.7% 31.8% 1,002,568 39.6% 38.2% 759,042 45.4% 44.3% Loan payment status is not reported by servicers after program disqualification (90+ days delinquent). Therefore, 90+ days delinquent loans are included in each of the 60+ and 90+ days delinquent metrics for all future reporting periods, even though some loans may have cured or paid off following program disqualification. In addition, once a loan is reported as paid off it is no longer reflected in future periods. 37 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage HAMP Tier 2 3 Mod. Effective in: # 2012Q3 2012Q4 2013Q1 2013Q2 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 All 0 946 2,481 4,101 11,187 11,213 10,503 10,886 9,191 11,088 13,113 13,953 14,290 11,873 12,625 4,355 141,805 Mod. Effective in: 2012Q3 2012Q4 2013Q1 2013Q2 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 All 60+ Days 90+ Days 0.0% 5.3% 4.3% 5.3% 5.8% 5.9% 4.1% 5.5% 5.7% 5.6% 4.5% 6.0% 6.7% 6.6% 4.6% 5.3% 5.5% 24 # Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 6 12 0.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 2.0% 1.9% 1.4% 1.4% 1.9% 1.7% 1.2% 1.6% 2.1% 2.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.6% # 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days 18 # 0 1,116 2,715 4,453 13,185 11,777 11,608 11,194 9,501 12,708 14,099 14,240 14,710 12,125 4,140 0.0% 9.9% 12.4% 13.8% 13.8% 11.8% 12.2% 12.9% 12.6% 11.0% 11.9% 14.0% 14.7% 12.5% 11.5% 0.0% 5.5% 7.1% 7.9% 8.1% 7.2% 6.6% 7.3% 7.9% 6.2% 6.4% 8.4% 8.8% 7.4% 6.2% 0 1,189 2,875 5,049 13,591 12,575 12,019 11,306 9,953 12,898 14,248 14,311 4,893 0.0% 23.7% 24.9% 21.8% 22.1% 22.0% 21.6% 19.9% 19.8% 21.0% 22.0% 23.0% 23.5% 0.0% 17.5% 19.4% 17.4% 16.5% 16.9% 16.9% 15.7% 15.1% 15.8% 16.7% 17.8% 18.2% 1 1,247 2,981 5,150 13,485 12,482 11,804 11,211 9,839 13,302 5,116 100.0% 28.1% 31.1% 29.1% 28.8% 26.7% 26.6% 26.4% 26.2% 26.4% 27.2% 100.0% 23.3% 26.8% 24.6% 24.6% 23.2% 22.8% 22.1% 21.9% 22.4% 22.8% 137,571 12.8% 7.4% 114,907 21.7% 16.7% 86,618 27.2% 23.1% Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 36 48 60+ Days 90+ Days 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days 1 1,260 3,011 5,186 13,783 12,614 12,016 11,025 3,552 100.0% 33.5% 35.8% 32.3% 31.8% 31.3% 30.7% 30.9% 29.9% 100.0% 28.7% 32.3% 29.1% 28.4% 27.8% 27.3% 27.6% 26.7% 1 1,283 3,235 5,258 3,832 100.0% 39.0% 38.8% 37.2% 34.5% 100.0% 34.5% 36.8% 34.7% 32.4% 62,448 31.5% 28.1% 13,609 37.0% 34.5% # 60+ Days 90+ Days 60 # 60+ Days 90+ Days Loan payment status is not reported by servicers after program disqualification (90+ days delinquent). Therefore, 90+ days delinquent loans are included in each of the 60+ and 90+ days delinquent metrics for all future reporting periods, even though some loans may have cured or paid off following program disqualification. In addition, once a loan is reported as paid off it is no longer reflected in future periods. 38 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 8: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Aguadilla-Isabela, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Albany, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Ames, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Arecibo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area Auburn-Opelika, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Beckley, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Bend-Redmond, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Bloomington, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Boise City, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent Modifications Started 78 218 2,888 382 262 2,034 3,694 201 4,702 169 167 70 582 1,273 209 397 168 1,434 605 46,539 2,732 291 1,157 3,065 8,590 18,422 409 1,962 2,707 469 304 398 80 661 1,311 171 318 4,029 56 198 245 249 63 3,155 26,935 698 194 1,057 7,340 Median Monthly Payment Reduction Median Monthly Payment Reduction % of PreModification Payment $195.44 $245.97 $299.50 $241.49 $339.20 $353.94 $332.14 $244.05 $398.31 $217.11 $252.84 $283.40 $501.26 $418.88 $221.79 $305.63 $261.16 $350.06 $301.66 $373.93 $488.62 $280.05 $263.23 $328.22 $470.07 $467.38 $305.68 $610.06 $263.18 $262.18 $231.42 $223.02 $203.25 $475.94 $524.64 $288.99 $236.58 $281.01 $350.12 $296.57 $287.91 $264.84 $264.88 $381.02 $617.86 $486.99 $243.47 $469.19 $695.32 33% 36% 37% 32% 33% 34% 33% 31% 34% 32% 36% 33% 32% 36% 32% 34% 36% 34% 34% 37% 38% 29% 34% 33% 37% 33% 34% 36% 31% 37% 35% 34% 34% 34% 36% 28% 35% 33% 35% 30% 35% 31% 41% 34% 35% 35% 34% 31% 40% 39 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 8: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area California-Lexington Park, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Cape Girardeau, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Carbondale-Marion, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Carson City, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Columbia, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Columbus, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Corvallis, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Danville, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent Modifications Started 659 290 1,842 475 472 405 1,424 5,423 118 71 427 138 378 306 233 186 3,400 10,880 684 1,587 157 82,097 1,211 6,865 292 258 9,540 696 146 2,225 184 2,925 850 136 6,065 468 116 939 165 17,118 512 69 53 424 625 2,326 213 108 6,567 Median Monthly Median Monthly Payment Payment Reduction % of PreReduction Modification Payment $230.79 $329.82 $259.85 $260.51 $418.08 $542.11 $266.40 $467.66 $229.40 $264.77 $520.56 $345.85 $257.46 $357.04 $243.19 $218.14 $349.66 $311.35 $384.68 $276.87 $275.18 $507.38 $456.21 $309.52 $224.25 $256.26 $308.45 $413.30 $219.03 $392.05 $250.41 $267.45 $273.22 $209.86 $319.53 $240.05 $362.93 $411.40 $246.68 $294.63 $261.01 $208.42 $172.03 $350.18 $242.77 $266.71 $222.26 $207.50 $385.83 35% 34% 36% 32% 35% 32% 35% 40% 31% 44% 37% 30% 33% 33% 31% 33% 34% 34% 31% 35% 27% 40% 34% 35% 32% 34% 38% 33% 28% 34% 33% 33% 34% 30% 36% 32% 27% 35% 33% 33% 35% 38% 23% 35% 36% 36% 29% 35% 38% 40 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 8: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area Dubuque, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area East Stroudsburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Elmira, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Eugene, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Fairbanks, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Fond du Lac, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Fort Collins, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Gettysburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Grand Island, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Grants Pass, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Great Falls, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Guayama, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent Modifications Started 12,819 1,585 26,595 216 1,012 114 743 1,524 1,473 261 1,602 1,552 161 663 132 439 1,283 485 70 192 135 764 1,268 347 1,937 579 166 187 905 268 974 9,311 200 776 1,182 289 400 211 68 40 601 3,439 365 84 1,162 632 2,841 406 2,642 49 Median Monthly Median Monthly Payment Payment Reduction % of PreReduction Modification Payment $404.38 $272.27 $374.72 $215.90 $390.31 $253.24 $283.60 $321.05 $476.85 $286.33 $435.83 $247.81 $238.72 $256.25 $260.59 $243.01 $386.18 $211.82 $376.83 $279.25 $301.31 $237.51 $291.39 $512.96 $323.46 $228.53 $214.79 $292.57 $405.03 $208.81 $242.13 $474.84 $242.17 $330.51 $330.91 $445.11 $333.15 $237.42 $230.39 $249.49 $407.89 $284.83 $520.53 $252.28 $354.15 $345.96 $288.10 $274.17 $260.67 $174.10 33% 32% 39% 30% 30% 35% 33% 35% 41% 33% 35% 34% 30% 33% 40% 39% 33% 31% 27% 31% 27% 34% 34% 34% 37% 33% 34% 33% 31% 30% 35% 37% 33% 36% 36% 37% 37% 34% 31% 36% 32% 34% 40% 28% 30% 38% 34% 34% 32% 32% 41 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 8: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Hammond, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Hinesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Homosassa Springs, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Hot Springs, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Houma-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Janesville-Beloit, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Kankakee, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Kennewick-Richland, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Killeen-Temple, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent Modifications Started 977 1,746 256 985 1,277 266 6,317 259 1,146 656 145 486 170 318 18,226 356 724 320 6,218 112 60 682 1,949 349 10,977 192 619 166 290 123 99 256 985 933 470 6,347 414 322 405 1,093 1,972 243 158 672 279 297 1,343 4,814 1,212 1,649 Median Monthly Median Monthly Payment Reduction % of Payment Pre-Modification Reduction Payment $266.38 $427.67 $293.57 $420.15 $298.45 $397.52 $448.80 $238.40 $246.59 $516.96 $262.33 $356.89 $313.21 $249.23 $283.40 $235.12 $243.95 $275.56 $271.42 $318.85 $361.30 $287.70 $249.39 $232.12 $368.80 $265.86 $263.91 $208.48 $243.60 $233.63 $218.19 $204.82 $1,031.71 $304.51 $340.40 $310.71 $272.58 $221.71 $247.20 $491.38 $264.19 $231.43 $263.15 $245.12 $262.20 $228.39 $408.40 $364.59 $306.12 $313.97 34% 33% 35% 34% 32% 34% 36% 32% 33% 42% 33% 42% 39% 32% 34% 35% 31% 28% 32% 32% 36% 36% 32% 34% 35% 29% 34% 29% 32% 34% 31% 32% 39% 37% 37% 35% 32% 31% 35% 38% 32% 34% 29% 32% 34% 32% 36% 37% 31% 36% 42 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 8: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lewiston, ID-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Longview, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area Manhattan, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Mankato-North Mankato, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Mayaguez, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Midland, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Monroe, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Muskegon, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent Modifications Started 588 391 27,911 174 108 292 105 355 896 236 400 1,351 222 170 446 113,771 3,564 199 516 975 1,756 1,283 2,283 67 163 340 88 1,409 1,311 8,238 2,564 84,116 395 113 80 6,451 19,460 266 1,359 6,956 250 779 935 55 289 522 207 651 1,898 1,194 Median Monthly Median Monthly Payment Reduction % of PrePayment Modification Payment Reduction $286.77 $325.95 $523.63 $323.89 $216.20 $287.55 $269.66 $332.18 $296.75 $246.08 $265.45 $244.48 $309.26 $230.32 $376.63 $799.67 $267.20 $227.67 $254.42 $276.54 $506.80 $387.53 $477.05 $324.16 $308.23 $238.47 $205.64 $250.53 $458.36 $295.15 $528.31 $534.41 $255.34 $311.23 $249.17 $355.90 $448.39 $412.98 $259.23 $559.28 $206.53 $351.56 $237.35 $374.30 $258.42 $506.12 $211.61 $247.08 $377.51 $817.81 36% 31% 38% 32% 34% 31% 27% 34% 35% 39% 32% 32% 27% 33% 33% 38% 33% 32% 30% 37% 38% 34% 34% 31% 30% 34% 34% 34% 35% 37% 38% 42% 34% 43% 30% 37% 36% 31% 36% 37% 28% 35% 30% 38% 32% 36% 34% 37% 36% 35% 43 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 8: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area New Bern, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area Olympia-Tumwater, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Panama City, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Parkersburg-Vienna, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area Pocatello, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area Ponce, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area Port St. Lucie, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Portland-South Portland, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area Pueblo, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Raleigh, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Reno, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent Modifications Started 2,586 5,602 136 6,279 4,788 120,501 519 5,612 1,558 2,683 647 69 1,925 2,067 1,138 1,950 28,432 299 143 7,952 4,842 681 109 1,853 517 31,595 44,046 97 4,961 272 184 213 5,492 2,714 12,025 1,383 11,871 2,654 677 1,318 807 3,848 160 1,541 1,208 4,158 6,309 70,337 842 442 Median Monthly Median Monthly Payment Reduction % of PrePayment Modification Payment Reduction $603.99 $311.23 $296.15 $472.83 $329.08 $786.37 $274.63 $467.79 $473.69 $356.07 $469.02 $213.97 $351.93 $255.71 $433.69 $273.81 $450.59 $281.56 $195.22 $827.87 $395.81 $387.19 $185.44 $305.07 $220.62 $391.26 $456.65 $242.67 $267.02 $329.56 $252.12 $235.58 $452.90 $440.37 $473.24 $442.16 $529.15 $454.19 $266.24 $441.07 $356.56 $338.42 $311.08 $334.58 $442.59 $523.92 $363.72 $630.85 $276.89 $321.42 41% 33% 39% 36% 35% 39% 35% 39% 37% 37% 33% 31% 28% 34% 32% 34% 38% 35% 34% 35% 38% 36% 30% 34% 34% 33% 37% 38% 35% 33% 31% 37% 39% 35% 34% 36% 38% 32% 35% 41% 36% 32% 33% 33% 34% 36% 32% 37% 32% 33% 44 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 8: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Rome, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Saginaw, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Salisbury, MD-DE Metropolitan Statistical Area Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area San German, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sandusky, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Rosa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Sebring, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area St. Cloud, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Stockton-Lodi, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent Modifications Started 1,926 1,539 436 193 23,699 495 1,771 3,637 1,583 6,002 60 3,819 25,423 30,894 93 9,938 4,034 1,628 70 1,613 667 2,783 4,227 1,443 1,608 21,561 1,195 369 237 187 923 218 212 257 1,092 968 1,725 227 3,020 806 378 518 1,093 209 12,025 167 194 9,840 244 892 Median Monthly Median Monthly Payment Payment Reduction % of PreReduction Modification Payment $263.27 $320.38 $251.64 $237.32 $606.72 $263.88 $383.94 $861.55 $414.47 $419.44 $203.67 $252.17 $753.98 $861.26 $236.24 $951.48 $295.80 $766.06 $217.68 $971.97 $516.23 $729.54 $803.64 $315.78 $283.99 $553.66 $402.93 $394.84 $283.23 $237.78 $240.98 $332.68 $234.31 $229.39 $251.80 $245.66 $326.41 $240.90 $360.57 $263.15 $261.04 $329.10 $530.66 $242.42 $300.13 $356.34 $378.76 $641.19 $224.28 $254.41 36% 38% 36% 31% 36% 37% 34% 40% 35% 33% 30% 32% 36% 37% 36% 37% 37% 36% 27% 38% 35% 38% 36% 34% 36% 34% 38% 43% 32% 33% 32% 36% 35% 26% 36% 32% 32% 37% 34% 34% 38% 32% 37% 36% 36% 35% 36% 37% 34% 35% 45 Making Home Affordable: Appendix Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2016 Appendix 8: HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Activity by MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent Modifications Started Median Monthly Median Monthly Payment Reduction % of Payment Pre-Modification Reduction Payment 1,431 $327.17 32% 24,234 $401.68 38% Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 209 $213.71 37% Texarkana, TX-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 114 $198.89 30% The Villages, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 170 $386.56 40% Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,354 $263.62 36% Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 326 $221.20 30% Trenton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,900 $483.19 37% Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,403 $362.82 35% Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,664 $249.80 33% Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 403 $282.06 32% Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 265 $300.03 35% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,017 $762.69 32% Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 418 $248.92 35% Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 221 $278.35 32% 6,740 $718.13 36% 53 $226.10 34% Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 852 $349.72 35% Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,819 $390.70 32% Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,071 $419.35 36% 218 $212.29 33% 90 $348.46 35% Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Walla Walla, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 365 $277.69 34% 52,559 $635.08 35% 237 $211.45 33% 57 $223.64 31% Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 209 $295.33 36% Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 164 $225.42 37% Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 316 $375.33 31% Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 133 $174.46 31% Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 76 $159.15 28% 902 $241.23 34% 183 $200.02 30% 1,204 $378.84 34% Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 862 $453.69 32% Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,987 $275.33 33% Worcester, MA-CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,013 $499.83 37% Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 467 $274.85 32% York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,861 $364.19 32% Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,487 $255.07 37% Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,493 $499.43 36% Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,263 $336.26 35% 46
@FedFRASER