Tag Archives: Home Affordable Modification Program

Post-Bubble Foreclosure-Prevention and -Mitigation Options in Your Town?

Posted on by

Bob Hockett has posted Post-Bubble Foreclosure-Prevention and -Mitigation Options in Seattle. I recommend it to those interested in issues beyond Seattle’s borders because it actually covers foreclosure-prevention and mitigation options across the country, although it looks at them with a Seattle focus.

He argues that

There is a potentially bewildering array of means available to at least some underwater homeowners, and these programs are also noteworthy for failing to solve the fundamental problems affecting these mortgages. There are three vitiating weakness share by nearly all of these means . . ..

The first weakness among currently available options is that they do not concentrate upon mortgage principal-reduction, meaning that they do nothing about the underwater status of underwater mortgage loans – which is the principal predictor of default and foreclosure – at all. Instead they rely upon temporary forbearance, term-extension, or interest rate reduction. . . .

The second weakness of the currently available options is that they are voluntary from the creditor’s point of view. That is problematic not because creditors lack in appreciation of their own enlightened self-interest or in desire to do the right thing, but because where there are structural or contractual barriers to principal reduction, as we shall see there are here in abundance, even creditor-benefiting such changes cannot occur on an adequate scale. Creditors are very often unable to do what benefits themselves and homeowners alike, meaning that voluntary programs can be useless.

Finally, the third weakness that the options discussed here suffer is that they do not extend to underwater PLS loans, which, as seen above, constitute the great bulk of troubled mortgage loans; they are in general available only to GSE and bank portfolio loans . . .. (11)

I found the review of “publicly encouraged debt relief” programs useful. (14) They include

  1. HAMP (the federal Home Affordable Modification Program)
  2. HARP (the federal Home Affordable Refinance Program)
  3. Miscellaneous Specialized HAMP Analogues
  4. FHA Short Refinance Program
  5. HAFA(federal Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternative)
  6. “Hardest Hit” Fund & Program (Treasury)
  7. HOPE NOW Alliance
  8. The Attorney Generals’ Settlement

Hockett also proposes some innovative approaches that he suggests that Seattle should consider including the use of eminent domain as well as a land bank. Worth the read.

 

Another Federal Judge Can’t Take It Anymore

Posted on by

Magistrate Judge Brown (EDNY) issued a memorandum and order in Pandit v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., CV 11-3935 (June 5, 2013) that reflects, to my mind, judicial frustration with mortgage industry companies.  This frustration arises, no doubt, from the many frequent of shockingly bad behavior by such companies.

Pandit concerned a mortgage that the plaintiffs had attempted to modify through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). HAMP has been derided as an “ineffectual” response (one of many) that arose in the aftermath of the financial crisis. (1) The plaintiffs allege that Saxon deceived them throughout their participation in HAMP and seek to form a class of similar victims.

Defendant moved to limit discovery to the named plaintiffs’ claims only or, in the alternative, to “the existence and scope of a putative class.” (2) The court stated that

[i]t is ironic, then, that a defendant accused of “routinely ask[ing] homeowners to resubmit financial information on pretextual grounds; mislead[ing] homeowners over the phone; and ignor[ing] completed loan modifications in what is fairly read to be a series of steps designed to string along loan modification applicants,” , now seeks to establish procedural hurdles that may fairly be read to string along the adjudication of plaintiffs’ legal action. The proposed path appears neither just nor fair. (13, citation omitted)

With that the Court denied defendant’s motion and granted plaintiff “leave to proceed with discovery related to their claims and certification of the class.” (2)

While this is, of course, just a procedural win for plaintiffs, the judge noted that the “parties are at liberty to engage in fulsome discovery . . ..” (14) Defendant, one would assume, is not looking forward to “excessive, extravagant, overdone, immoderate, inordinate” discovery and are not looking forward to appearing before a judge who issues such an order.

 

[HT Scott Mollen, NYLJ]

Principled Forgiveness

Posted on by

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report, Modifying Mortgages Involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Options for Principal Forgiveness, that reviews where we are with principal-forgiveness loan modifications. It notes that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have not been allowed to implement principal forgiveness out of concerns about fairness, implementation costs, and the incentive that the approach could provide for people to become delinquent in order to obtain principal forgiveness.” (1)

The report examines how the GSEs could employ principal forgiveness. A key issue that the report addresses is how to deal with the moral hazard of homeowners “becoming delinquent in order to obtain principal forgiveness.” (3) This could result in large costs for the federal government and would be inequitable to those who are similarly situated who choose not to become delinquent.

The CBO analyzes three principal forgiveness options.  Each option would allow a GSE to choose between a standard HAMP modification or one that involved principal forgiveness, “depending on which one lowered the government’s expected costs more.” (3) CBO estimates that 1.2 million borrowers might be eligible for such a program, which would be about 40 percent of all underwater borrowers. CBO estimates that the federal government would save a modest amount of money with these options.

The CBO’s cost-benefit principle seems like a reasonable basis upon which to expand principal forgiveness loan modifications.  The FHFA should pursue these options even before its new leadership is in place.

Unhampered and HAMPered Mortgage Modifications

Posted on by

The National Consumer Law Center has issued a thorough report, At a Crossroads:  Lessons from the Home Affordable Modification Program  (HAMP), which also provides some guidance for the way forward after we get past the foreclosure crisis.  The authors summarize their findings as follows:

The government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) is our starting point. HAMP has reached more homeowners, and successfully modified more home loans, than any program in history. Created by the federal government in early 2009 as a temporary program in response to the foreclosure crisis, HAMP provided additional financial incentives to servicers and investors to modify mortgages at risk of ending in foreclosure. The result has been affordable, sustainable loan modifications that keep borrowers in their homes and maximize returns to investors. But HAMP fell short of its goals, which were inadequate to the scope of the crisis. HAMP has been justly criticized for its lack of transparency and its failure to provide for effective enforcement. (3)

Not pulling punches, the report squarely places responsibility for its failure on “one root cause: massive servicer noncompliance. Almost every official evaluation of HAMP has noted widespread servicer noncompliance and the concurrent failure of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to engage in meaningful enforcement.” (4)  Given that millions more foreclosures are on the horizon, this failure must be rooted out.

The report identifies five principles for effective loan modification standards:

  1. Loan modification evaluations should be standardized, universally applicable to all loans and servicers, and mandatory for all loans before the foreclosure process can go forward.
  2. Loan modification terms must be affordable, fair, and sustainable.
  3. Hardship must be defined to reflect the range of challenges homeowners face.
  4. Transparency and accountability throughout the loan modification process are essential.
  5. Homeowners must be protected from servicers’ noncompliance. Good rules on paper are not enough. (4)

I am intrigued by some of the particular proposals, although I am not sure how they actually work in practice.  For instance, the report states that “Provisions Must Be Made for Homeowners with Junior Liens and Others for Whom a Thirty-One Percent Monthly Mortgage Payment Is Not Affordable.” (58) At what point must we say that a particular situation is untenable?  The report also proposes that “A Servicer’s Violation of Servicing Standards Should Constitute a Defense to a Foreclosure.” (63) While this would no doubt be great for current homeowners, it would also be a radical role change for the foreclosure process.  If this idea gets any traction, it will be interesting to see the industry critique.