VALERI Servicer Newsflash

Investor Update
October 4, 2016

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Oregon Appraisals – Effective September 1, 2016, all Oregon liquidation appraisal fees have increased.
These changes may be viewed on the VALERI Fee Cost Schedule.

Fiscal Year 2016 End-of-Year Close Out – Due to end-of-year close out processing, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Financial Management System (FMS) will not be available from September 30, 2016, to October 6, 2016. This means no payments will be issued in VALERI (incentives, acquisitions, or claims) during this time. Payments will be released beginning October 12, 2016. For any payments not received within 14 days of October 12th, please contact the assigned VA technician.

Transfer Tax – The Fee Cost Schedule has been updated to allow $1,500 for all states for this line item.

Delaware – Delaware is now considered a confirmation state. The State Foreclosure Timeframe document has been updated and uploaded to VALERI Internet site. In addition, CQ Ticket 12646 has been opened to make the change in VALERI. For additional information, see Appendix G of the VA Servicer Handbook.

DEVELOPMENT UPDATES

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016, VALERI Manifest 16.3 BI will be released. The following Report System enhancements/updates will be included:

CQ 12303 – New Report: Missing Primary Borrower’s First/Last Name. Report displays loans missing borrower’s first/last name so servicers can correct by entering the missing borrower name field. This will allow the loan to report correctly in VALERI.
CQ 12490 – Appeal Summary Report defect has been corrected and servicers should now be able to view VA’s recommendation comment.
CQ 12046 – New Report: Notice of Value Issued. Report provides servicers with a list of loans where the NOV has been issued and includes the borrower’s name, payment due date, property address, net value, NOV issue date, NOV expiration date, and scheduled foreclosure sale.
CQ 12472 – Acquisition Payment Status report was previously generating an error message and not pulling complete data. This defect has been corrected.
CQ 9220 – New Report: Updated Events. Report displays events that have been withdrawn by the servicer or cancelled by VA and the source of the event (SWP, Servicing System or Bulk Upload).
CQ 10131 – Claim Detail Results Report – Three additional columns have been added to the report to provide servicers with the total amount submitted, certified, and disallowed for all advances and liquidation expenses.

Source: VA

Structure of CFPB Ruled Unconstitutional

Investor Update
October 11, 2016

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday ordered a restructuring of how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) operates within the executive branch, calling the Bureau’s structure “unconstitutional.”

New Jersey-based mortgage lender PHH Corp. had challenged a $109 million fine handed down by CFPB Director Richard Cordray, becoming the first organization to challenge an enforcement action handed down by the CFPB.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the CFPB will be allowed to continue operating as an agency and perform its duties as it has been, but that it will be an executive agency similar to other executive agencies such as the Department of Justice and Department of Treasury that are headed by a single person.

“This new agency, the CFPB, lacks that critical check and structural constitutional protection, yet wields vast power over the U.S. economy,” the ruling stated. “In light of the consistent historical practice under which independent agencies have been headed by multiple commissioners or board members, and in light of the threat to individual liberty posed by a single-Director independent agency…We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured.”

The court’s ruling gives the president the power to supervise the CFPB’s director and remove him from that position at will; the court also asked the CFPB to review the decision in the PHH Corp. case.

The Bureau was created in July 2011 out of the Dodd-Frank Act. While Democrats have defended the Bureau’s structure and pointed to the more than $11 billion returned to consumers that the Bureau has deemed financially harmed, the CFPB has been harshly criticized by Republicans who believe it to be an overreaching agency whose power is unchecked.

The court’s ruling noted the power of the Bureau’s director, stating that, “In short, when measured in terms of unilateral power, the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire U.S. Government, other than the President. Indeed, within his jurisdiction, the Director of the CFPB can be considered even more powerful than the President. It is the Director’s view of consumer protection law that prevails over all others. In essence, the Director is the President of Consumer Finance. The concentration of massive, unchecked power in a single Director marks a departure from settled historical practice and makes the CFPB unique among traditional independent agencies.”

The court further stated that the Bureau’s determining when, how, and against whom to bring enforcement actions “occurs in the twilight of judicially unreviewable discretion. Those discretionary actions have a critical impact on individual liberty.”

CFPB spokesperson Moira Vahey said in reaction to Tuesday’s D.C. Circuit Court decision: “The Bureau respectfully disagrees with the Court’s decision. The Bureau believes that Congress’s decision to make the Director removable only for cause is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and the Bureau is considering options for seeking further review of the Court’s decision. In the meantime, as the court expressly recognized, the Bureau will continue its important work. Congress has charged the Bureau with ensuring that the markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive and with protecting consumers in these markets from unlawful practices. Today’s decision will not dampen our efforts or affect our focus on the mission of the agency.”

House Financial Services Committee Republicans praised the court’s decision, while the Democrats on the Committee derided it:

#CFPB structure ruled unconstitutional: Director Cordray, H.R. 1266 could fix that for you -> #fiveperson#bipartisanpanel

— Randy Neugebauer (@RandyNeugebauer) October 11, 2016
#RELEASE – @MaxineWaters@CFPB Works for Consumers Despite Conservative Efforts to Dismantle It – https://t.co/RfEBHMeqh3

— Financial Services (@FSCDems) October 11, 2016
Credit unions, which have long sought relief from the CFPB’s regulatory regime, praised the court’s decision.

“I applaud the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding the PHH case against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in that it will establish a meaningful check and balance and bring needed accountability to the Director’s role,” said Credit Union National Association (CUNA) President/CEO Jim Nussle. “This ruling confirms CUNA’s concern that the structure of the CFPB is flawed and that an unchecked, independent director who answers to no one can’t lead to good public policy.  CUNA continues to support a five-person commission for the CFPB instead of its current structure.”

PHH had originally been fined $6.4 million by an administrative law judge in November 2014 for accepting kickbacks in the form of reinsurance premiums paid to a PHH subsidiary by mortgage insurers, a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The administrative law judge ruled that PHH was responsible only for payments accepted on mortgage loans that closed on or after July 21, 2008; Cordray expanded that penalty to $109 million in June 2015, saying that PHH was in violation of RESPA for every kickback payment the company accepted after July 21, 2008 even, if the loans closed before that date.

PHH immediately appealed the decision and the arguments were heard in the D.C. Court of Appeals in April 2016. PHH’s petition with the court stated: “Never before has so much authority been consolidated in the hands of one individual shielded from the president’s control and Congress’s power of the purse.” This, PHH claimed, put the CFPB director’s power and tenure at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board decision from 2010.

CFPB defended itself and the $109 million disgorgement in a filing with the D.C. Circuit Court, claiming the penalty was a “small fraction” of the kickbacks and that the $109 million was merely money that the company should have never received to begin with, and therefore in essence not a penalty.

Click here for a copy of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling from Tuesday.

Source: DS News

Additional Resource:
U.S. Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs (Shelby Statement on the CFPB’s Unconstitutional Structure)

Prepared Remarks of CFPB Director Richard Cordray at the Mortgage Bankers Association

Investor Update
October 25, 2016

Thank you for having me today. Over the past five years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Mortgage Bankers Association have each been working in our own ways to revive a mortgage industry that was devastated by the financial crisis. During the run-up to the crisis, we saw established traditions of responsible lending pushed aside by predatory actors whose misconduct hurt millions of Americans. It led to disruptions in the mortgage markets, transmitted through securitization channels to the broader financial system, which triggered its collapse. In the wake of that crisis, you have been doing the hard work of extending credit at a time when economic activity was greatly impaired by extreme financial conditions. You have undergone intense scrutiny, including from within your own ranks, to diagnose what happened.

Even now, eight years later, we have not yet returned to normal conditions. The secondary market for mortgage financing remains moribund, and interest rates stand at historic lows. Although home foreclosures, mortgage delinquencies, and underwater mortgages have all declined steadily, they still affect millions of consumers who continue to feel the effects of the crisis. The pace of recovery has clearly been uneven around the country, particularly in communities of color. And I agree with Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt that the market is not yet supporting access to credit for the full spectrum of creditworthy borrowers; average credit scores for home purchase loans are still above the levels historically viewed as normal from past years.

Nonetheless, we are seeing more and more encouraging signs. New home sales are up 20 percent year over year, while existing home sales are back up to pre-boom levels. Home prices are rising in many areas and positive homeowner equity is now at a record level, pushing $13.5 trillion. By the middle of this year, delinquency rates hit a ten-year low, and foreclosures were the lowest in 16 years. Consumers who had been shut out of the mortgage market for years by prior foreclosures are now returning. And the much-dreaded resetting of troubled home equity lines of credit issued in the years just before the crisis is now being accomplished with minimal disruption.

Notably, the first set of mortgage rules that we adopted took effect in January of 2014. That year, home purchase mortgages rose by 4 percent, according to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. In 2015, they picked up steam, rising by almost 14 percent. Preliminary data for this year indicate that the growth trend continues to advance strongly. Even the millennials, many of whom have put off forming households until they were older, now seem to be starting to enter the market. And we are seeing many lenders willing to make sensible jumbo loans. Some of those are non-Qualified Mortgage loans, as more lenders come to recognize that their initial anxieties over the feared legal risks have not materialized.

We firmly believe that through our work in this area, the Consumer Bureau has played an important part in these developments. We know that sometimes you are focused only on one side of the equation, namely the compliance costs you have incurred in implementing the rules we issued. That is a fact, but it is an inevitable one. No economic sector that precipitates a global financial meltdown could possibly expect to escape far-reaching reforms, as the Congress so dictated. But the safeguards we have put in place around underwriting, servicing, and loan originator compensation have improved industry performance, promoted responsible lending, and helped restore consumer trust that was badly shaken by the events of the past decade. These improvements benefit responsible lenders just as much as they benefit consumers.

By issuing our first set of regulations, we also bought you some crucial time by avoiding the immediate and self-executing directives that Congress had enacted in Title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act. That could have been a calamity, but it was averted. Instead, our rules helped facilitate the implementation of the new law and reduced the burden you otherwise would have experienced. Through the GSE patch in the Qualified Mortgage definition, we avoided disruption to the fragile mortgage market that existed in the wake of the crisis. By adopting a reasonable “good faith” approach to oversight of the Ability-to-Repay rule, we met industry halfway by working with our fellow regulators to assure that our early examinations would be sensitive to the good faith efforts you made to come into compliance and thus would be diagnostic and corrective. And that is exactly what we have done.

We have also shown our commitment to collaborate with you by our extensive work on regulatory implementation. Through innovative approaches like blog posts, plain-language guides, webinars, and our e-regulations tool, along with more traditional resources like responses to inquiries, we have acted out our philosophy that once we have adopted and finalized a new rule, it is never simply “your problem now.” Instead, we maintain focus on how we can work together to ease compliance and make sure the new rules are implemented successfully. And rather than hide defensively behind a stubborn pride of authorship, we have not hesitated to revisit our rules when we are persuaded that we need to fix unexpected problems, clarify issues, or relieve unnecessary compliance burdens.

So the bottom line is that we have come a long way in a short time. The tasks were immense, and they created real strain, both on your end and on ours. But the mortgage market is now in much better shape because of all our joint efforts. And we remain open-minded, in constant listening mode, about how we can identify further improvements as we move forward together.

About a year ago, I came and spoke with you about our “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule. I described our belief that it would empower consumers with the knowledge they need to become satisfied customers with more sustainable mortgages. The rule had taken effect for only two weeks, and there was great concern about how hard it was to integrate IT systems and get multiple players on the same page in dealing with the new forms. As you know, Congress required us to consolidate the overlapping disclosures previously required by the Truth-in-Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. We took the opportunity to develop new forms that would improve the process. We think that before consumers take on a mortgage, they should understand its costs and risks and be able to compare them across lenders. This is the largest transaction many consumers will ever make, and we want them to be able to arrive at the closing table already informed about the costs they are being charged. We want them to be prepared to question what they do not understand or what may seem at odds with the information they were given ahead of time.

At this point last year, many of you were experiencing real and legitimate growing pains around the new rule. But we have continued to work closely with the Mortgage Bankers Association and other stakeholders to smooth the implementation process. We have clarified and addressed many issues over the past year, and we have been working with investors, due diligence firms, and the rating agencies to help make sure that any minor or technical errors made on the forms do not pose unnecessary obstacles to purchasing the loans. While yet more work is underway, the kinks are being worked out and the concerns are subsiding. The number of new mortgages declined in the first month under the rule, but bounced back sharply and was up by 18 percent in the second quarter of this year versus last year. Closing times – which had lengthened immediately after the rule took effect – have been shorter for most of this year than they were before the rule. People’s belongings are not sitting out in the street between the sale of one house and the purchase of another, and we have been encouraging exciting new approaches, such as e-closings, to ease the stodgy old paper-heavy process. We are glad to see the mortgage industry finding ways to create more convenience and insight for consumers.

As I told you last year, in our examination work around compliance with this rule, we and the other regulators have pledged to be sensitive to the progress made by lenders that are squarely focused on making good faith efforts to come into compliance with the rule on time. We have also said that our approach would be diagnostic and corrective, not punitive. That is precisely what we are doing. What this means is that we will be evaluating a company’s compliance management system and overall efforts to come into compliance, as well as conducting transaction testing – looking at loan files – which is of course necessary to be diagnostic. If violations are identified, we will work with the entity to determine the root cause of the issue and determine what corrective actions are necessary. As a routine part of our review, we will assess whether tolerance violations have occurred, and where found, we will require reimbursement to consumers as a remedial measure. I am happy to report that our initial examinations seem to indicate, just as we expected, that lenders did in fact make good faith efforts to comply with the rules and generally we are finding that consumers are receiving timely and accurate Loan Estimates and Closing Disclosures.

Most importantly, the reports we hear – from consumers, housing counselors, and real estate professionals alike – indicate that consumers like the new forms, and find them helpful and easier to understand than the old forms. A survey of repeat home buyers confirmed these reports, and a second survey indicates that consumers are indeed paying attention to the Closing Disclosures they receive. Likewise, the Home Loan Toolkit that is presented to every applicant for a home purchase mortgage, in plain language and with a simpler and shorter format than the old settlement cost booklet, is helping them navigate the process with greater certainty and understanding. All of these changes are helping to smooth the closing process and producing customers who are less anxious and more satisfied with how things are being handled.

The process of full compliance is, of course, evolutionary, so in July we proposed further updates to the rule to formalize guidance and give more clarity to assist compliance efforts within the mortgage industry. The comment period on that proposal closed last week, and we will carefully review all of the comments we received before finalizing any changes.

In addition, we are continuing to work side by side with industry on the implementation of new reporting requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. As you know, this data tells us how lenders are serving the housing needs of their communities. It gives public officials information to help them decide how best to distribute public-sector investments so as to attract private investment to areas where it is most needed. It reveals lending patterns that could be discriminatory. And it helps lenders understand changing loan patterns in their own local markets. In general, this rule provides better information on the mortgage market, including the reporting of data elements that will help regulators, industry, and the public to understand the effects of the recent reforms.

We recognize this means yet another implementation process for mortgage lenders, so we set a generous lead time to implement the rule. For most of it, the effective date is January 2018, which means the first submission of new data is not due to the Bureau until March 2019. One change, a higher loan-volume coverage threshold for depository institutions that will exempt institutions doing a small number of loans, takes effect this January.

Beyond our efforts to compile better information, we are also easing compliance burdens by developing better ways to collect it, such as aligning much of the data with the Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization standards used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We also are working with the Mortgage Bankers Association and others to streamline how you submit this data. We will be launching a new, web-based platform for reporting data that when fully implemented could save the industry between $30 million and $60 million per year. We encourage you to check out the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act implementation page at our website, consumerfinance.gov. There you will find a technology preview, guides to filing and compliance, and other useful resources including a timeline, reportable data summaries, a well-received webinar, and other tools. Time is passing, and nobody should be waiting until the last minute to get ready to implement the rule.

The Bureau also continues to look at ways to address the privacy interests of both borrowers and applicants while also fulfilling the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act’s public disclosure purposes. Early next year we plan to publish our proposed policy on the public disclosure of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data and we will invite public comments on those issues.

On another point, it is regrettable that much of the damage done during the crisis to consumers and the broader economy could likely have been contained early on by a more adequate system of mortgage servicing. A more effective system might have been up to the task of working with struggling borrowers to find appropriate ways to avoid foreclosure through loan modifications and short sales. But servicers were ill prepared and were unable to address even the best interests of their clients – the investors – let alone the consumers and our communities.

Our mortgage servicing rules took effect in 2014. They were designed to put the service back in mortgage servicing. They provide basic safeguards such as requiring that servicers credit payments promptly and correct errors upon written request. They include strong protections for struggling homeowners, including those facing foreclosure. We have now had a chance to see how they are working in the marketplace. We have made mortgage servicing a priority in our supervisory work, and we have conducted enforcement investigations as well. We also continue to analyze the mortgage complaints we receive – over 50,000 in the past year alone – so that we can better understand trends and the personal concerns raised by consumers.

As we have publicly reported, we have seen some progress, most notably efforts by certain servicers to adequately staff up effective compliance management programs. But many troubling issues persist. While we applaud the investments made in compliance by certain servicers, others have not yet made satisfactory progress. Outdated and deficient servicing technology continues to put many consumers at risk. This problem is made worse by a lack of training to use their technology effectively. Needless errors impose harm to consumers facing delinquency or engaged in loss mitigation processes. These shortcomings can become chronic when servicers do not implement proper system testing and auditing processes.

To spur needed improvements in servicer compliance, we will, in appropriate circumstances, be insisting on specific and credible plans from servicers describing how their information technology systems will be upgraded and improved to resolve these issues effectively.

At the same time, we will be working alongside industry to make sure the updated servicing rules we recently finalized, which generally will take effect in October 2017, are implemented effectively. These rules clarify certain issues, allow more flexibility in some areas, strengthen foreclosure protections, and add some important new consumer safeguards for servicing transfers, for successors-in-interest, and for borrowers who are in bankruptcy.

We also are closely monitoring the efforts being made by mortgage servicers, investors, government housing agencies, and policymakers to address the coming expiration of the Home Affordable Modification Program. This summer, we outlined key consumer protection principles for the development of new foreclosure relief solutions. The assistance that servicers extend to consumers who are facing foreclosure should be accessible, affordable, sustainable, and transparent. That should be true for all loss mitigation options, including loan modifications, repayment plans, and short sales. And consumers should get clear, concise information about servicer decisions.

Let me also address three further points. While compliance with existing laws and rules is, of course, a baseline expectation for all providers, we believe that the industry can better serve consumers by paying more conscious attention to what those consumers themselves have to say. Addressing their complaints effectively and correcting the processes that give rise to these complaints can make for a more efficient and successful business. I am sure that each of you has your own mechanisms to address complaints and inquiries from consumers, which we consider to be a basic component of any successful compliance management system. This input from your customers merits your most careful attention.

Beyond that, there is much to be learned from the complaints consumers raise about your industry, even if the complaints are not directed to you specifically. And the Bureau has a rich resource at your fingertips in our public Consumer Complaint Database. We have now received more than one million consumer complaints, which we study to prioritize our own supervision and enforcement work. We have published more than 646,000 of them, along with data on company responses. We share this data not only to empower consumers and inform the public, but also so that companies can learn from the data and improve their own operations. By closely analyzing complaint patterns, we can identify spikes in specific complaint types, emerging trends, issues with new and evolving products, and patterns across geographic areas, companies and consumer demographics. We urge you to be doing the same thing, not only with our complaints and the feedback you receive directly from your own customers, but also by reviewing complaints made about others in the same markets. This is data you can use to address current problems and prevent issues from arising in the future. All of this work is an important part of sound compliance management.

The second point has to do with redlining in the mortgage market. Although we all could wish that this historical injustice was a thing of the past, we have identified redlining as a priority issue in our supervisory work. We define the term as covering illegal disparate treatment in which a lender provides uneven access to credit, or unequal terms of credit, because of the race, color, national origin, or other prohibited characteristics of the residents of the areas where the consumer resides or the property is located. And we have teamed up with the Department of Justice to bring major public enforcement actions in this area, requiring millions of dollars in relief to consumers who were victimized by these discriminatory practices.

The third point relates to the recent ruling by a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the PHH matter. The panel rendered a ruling on constitutional grounds and on statutory grounds applying the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act to captive reinsurance. The case is not final at this point; the Bureau has made clear that it respectfully disagrees with the panel’s decision and is considering its options for seeking further review. In the meantime, we will continue to consider how best to apply the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act to specific factual situations just as we always do. In particular, we continue to adhere to our 2015 bulletin identifying the substantial risks posed by marketing services agreements as we have encountered them in our enforcement actions and through our supervisory oversight.

In closing, we all are aware that the mortgage market has undergone dramatic change in the past decade. It has traveled a long and winding road from the irresponsible spree that sabotaged the world’s largest economy through a highly restrictive market that excluded many creditworthy applicants from qualifying for reasonable and responsible loans. Under our new rules, what is now emerging is a mortgage market in a steady recovery. Home values are on the rise in many areas, and millions of homes are resurfacing from their previously underwater status. We are able to reaffirm that homeownership is still the most effective engine of wealth accumulation for middle-class Americans. Your efforts to grow your businesses are rebuilding this key market, which is now contributing strongly to our economic recovery, rather than holding it back.

The retail pioneer James Cash Penney – yes, that J. C. Penney – said “Honor bespeaks worth. Confidence begets trust. Service brings satisfaction. Cooperation proves the quality of leadership.” I am encouraged to see you maintaining your leadership in addressing the financial issues at the center of the lives of millions of consumers. We share the ultimate goal of helping consumers thrive and achieve their own version of the American Dream. Thank you.

Source: CFPB

MHA HAMP Reporting Update Updated Reporting Form Posted on HMPadmin.com

Investor Update
October 10, 2016

The MHA LPI Date Correction Request Form has been updated.

Servicers should continue to use the existing form through October 13, 2016 (BD8) for October cycle submissions. Between October 14, 2016 (BD9) and February 10, 2017 (BD8), only the new form will be accepted. Please watch out for further notification on Release OB 3.0 format.

This form can be found in the Data Reporting tab on the secure side (login required) of HMPadmin.com.

Questions?
Email the HAMP Solution Center or call 1-866-939-4469.

Source: MHA

MHA HAMP Reporting Update September 2016 UP Survey Now Available

Investor Update
October 17, 2016

The September 2016 UP survey is now available on HMPadmin.com (login required). Servicers that have executed a Servicer Participation Agreement (SPA) and that have cumulative UP activity must complete and upload their UP survey response to the HAMP® Reporting Tool (login required) by Monday, October 24, 2016.

SPA servicers that have any cumulative UP activity as of September 30, 2016 must submit an UP survey at this time.

For details on downloading and submitting the UP survey response, log in to HMPadmin.com, navigate to the HAMP Loan Reporting Tools & Documents area, and select the UP Survey tab.

Questions?
For more information, email the HAMP Solution Center or call 1-866-939-4469.

For questions specifically regarding the survey contents, email the HAMP Servicer Survey team.

Source: MHA

MHA HAMP Reporting Update March 2017 Release Communication Plan Posted

Investor Update
October 13, 2016

The communication plan for the March 2017 Release has been posted on the open and secure sides of HMPadmin.com. This plan provides a high-level overview of the upcoming release with key milestones identified.

Please review the March 2017 Release Communication Plan for more details. This plan can be found in the Release Notes tab under the Loan Reporting Documents section on HMPadmin.com.

Questions? 
Email the HAMP® Solution center or call 1-866-939-4469; to reach Black Knight Financial Services (BKFS), select option 1, then option 5.

Source: MHA

MHA HAMP Reporting Update HAMP Reporting System Will Be Down for Maintenance

Investor Update
October 14, 2016

The HAMP® Reporting System will be unavailable due to maintenance from 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, October 25 to 8:00 a.m. Tuesday, November 1. HAMP Reporting System response files will not be sent during this time; they will be sent as soon as the system is available.

The HAMP Reporting Tool is still available for servicers to submit and upload HAMP loan data files, and the corresponding Black Knight response files will be provided as usual.

Questions?
For more information, email the HAMP Solution Center or call 1-866-939-4469.

Source: MHA

Industry Experts Reveal Details of HAMP Replacement Program

Investor Update
October 26, 2016

Non-crisis program will increase accessibility to loan mods

The Home Affordable Modification Program will expire at the end of this year, and experts from the industry talked about its replacement: One Mod: Principles for Post-HAMP Loan Modification at the Mortgage Bankers Association annual conference this week.

The MBA revealed its new program proposal at the end of September. While the Federal Housing Finance Agency already created a new program to replace the Home Affordable Refinance Program, nothing is in place to take over for HAMP.

“One Mod is a universal framework designed to provide the customer meaningful payment relief early in delinquency,” JPMorgan Chase Product Executive Erik Schmitt told HousingWire. “This is achieved through the creation of a simplified customer experience and a product designed to provide meaningful payment relief, which is the key driver of re-performance.”

“Additionally, the product is durable, in that it is designed to provide customers with assistance across a broad range of economic environments,” Schmitt said.

One Mod will be an improvement from HAMP as experts analyze what worked and what didn’t.

“We’re taking the lessons that we learned from HAMP and finding ways to only require the specific documentation used to drive payment reduction,” Alex McGillis of Quicken Loans told HousingWire. “The data from HAMP shows that payment reduction is the biggest driver in reducing re-defaults.”

There will be several changes to the new program as the industry shifts towards what Yvette Gilmore, Freddie Mac vice president of servicing performance management, calls a non-crisis program.

One of the major shifts includes an increase in the program’s availability.

“The focus of One Mod is to maximize the number of homes saved, which is achieved through increasing program accessibility and providing more sustainable solutions to prevent default,” Schmitt said.

Also, the proposed program will differ when it comes to the regulation that controls it. At the session, the MBA asked Laurie Maggiano, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau program manager, what the industry can expect when it comes to new regulation for loan modification.

“We just published a 900-page rule, what else do you want?” Maggiano joked. Then, on a more serious note, she added, “Because the rule doesn’t say what a modification should look like, and I don’t expect to go there, I don’t expect any more regulation.”

McGillis summed up the goals for the new program:

“Everyone should have the ability or chance to save their home no matter what they’re going through,” he said at the session.

Source: HousingWire

HUD Secretary Announces Help for Victims of Hurricane Matthew

Investor Update
October 11, 2016

Foreclosure protection offered to displaced families in four states

WASHINGTON – U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro today announced HUD will speed federal disaster assistance to the States of North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia and provide support to homeowners and low-income renters forced from their homes due to Hurricane Matthew. This week, President Obama issued a disaster declaration for the following counties:

North Carolina: Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gates, Hoke, Hyde, Jones, Johnston, Lenoir, Nash, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Wayne, and Wilson.
South Carolina: Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Darlington, Dillon, Dorchester, Florence, Georgetown, Horry, Jasper, Marion, and Williamsburg
Florida: Brevard, Duval, Flagler, Indian River, Nassau, St. Johns, St. Lucie and Volusia.
Georgia: Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Glynn, Liberty, and McIntosh.

The President’s declaration allows HUD to offer foreclosure relief and other assistance to certain families living in this county.

“Today, our collective thoughts and prayers are with those who are now facing the painful process of recovering from this storm,” said Castro. “As our sister agencies assess the damage and respond to the immediate needs of our citizens, HUD will offer any assistance possible and stands ready to support the longer term housing recovery efforts.”

HUD is:

  • Assisting the affected states and local governments in re-allocating existing federal resources toward disaster relief – HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs give the State and communities the flexibility to redirect millions of dollars in annual formula funding to address critical needs, including housing and services for disaster victims. HUD is currently contacting State and local officials to explore streamlining the Department’s CDBG and HOME programs in order to expedite the repair and replacement of damaged housing;
  • Granting immediate foreclosure relief – HUD granted a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and forbearance on foreclosures of Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured home mortgages;
  • Making mortgage insurance available – HUD’s Section 203(h) Program allows the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure mortgages made by qualified lenders to victims of a major disaster who have lost their homes and are in the process of rebuilding or buying another home. Individuals are eligible for this program if their homes are located in an area that was designated by the President as a disaster area and if their homes were destroyed or damaged to such an extent that reconstruction or replacement is necessary;
  • Making insurance available for both mortgages and home rehabilitation – HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program enables those who have lost their homes to finance the purchase or refinance of a house along with its repair through a single mortgage. It also allows homeowners who have damaged houses to finance the rehabilitation of their existing single-family home; and
  • Offering Section 108 loan guarantee assistance – HUD will offer state and local governments federally guaranteed loans for housing rehabilitation, economic development and repair of public infrastructure.
  • Information on housing providers and HUD programs – The Department will share information with FEMA and the State on housing providers that may have available units in the impacted counties. This includes Public Housing Agencies and Multi-Family owners. The Department will also connect FEMA and the State to subject matter experts to provide information on HUD programs and providers.

Read about these and other HUD programs designed to assist disaster victims.

Source: HUD

HUD Awards $500 Million to Help Louisiana, Texas & West Virginia to Recover From Historic Flooding

Investor Update
October 13, 2016

Funding to address counties with most critical needs

WASHINGTON – U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julián Castro today awarded a total of $500 million to help Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia to recover after severe flooding events that occurred earlier this year. Provided through HUD’s Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Program, these recovery funds will assist the most impacted communities that experienced the most serious damage to their housing stock.

President Obama signed the Continuing Resolution into law on September 29, 2016. This stopgap spending measure directed HUD to allocate $500 million “in the most impacted and distressed areas” that experienced presidentially declared disasters in 2016, but prior to September 29th. As a result of this limitation, HUD considered all 33 major disasters that occurred within this period of time. Areas effected by Hurricane Matthew are not eligible as for these funds as disaster declarations for Matthew occurred after the Continuing Resolution became law.

“Immediately after President Obama signed this spending bill into law, my team began identifying the strongest cases to receive disaster recovery funds,” said Secretary Castro. “These three states – Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia – experienced intense and destructive flooding causing great damage to residents’ homes and draining state resources. Today, we make a critically needed investment to help these communities recover and help families rebuild their homes.”

HUD awarded the following disaster recovery funds based on each state’s proportional share of serious unmet housing needs:

For this allocation, HUD allocates CDBG-Disaster Recovery funds based on the best available data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to identify the areas of greatest level of ‘unmet housing need.’ In the hardest-hit counties of Louisiana (6 counties), Texas (3 counties), and West Virginia (2 counties), more than 102,000 households experienced some level of damage to their homes including more than 41,000 families who saw the most serious level of damage or destruction and unmet needs.

HUD will shortly publish a notice in the Federal Register which will define the criteria for the use of these funds. CDBG-Disaster Recovery grants can support a wide variety of activities including housing redevelopment, business assistance and infrastructure repair.

Source: HUD (full press release)

x

CEO

Alan Jaffa

Alan Jaffa is the Chief Executive Officer for Safeguard Properties, steering the company as the mortgage field services industry leader. He also serves on the board of advisors for SCG Partners, a middle-market private equity fund focused on diversifying and expanding Safeguard Properties’ business model into complimentary markets.

Alan joined Safeguard in 1995, learning the business from the ground up. He was promoted to Chief Operating Officer in 2002, and was named CEO in May 2010. His hands-on experience has given him unique insights as a leader to innovate, improve and strengthen Safeguard’s processes to assure that the company adheres to the highest standards of quality and customer service.

Under Alan’s leadership, Safeguard has grown significantly with strategies that have included new and expanded services, technology investments that deliver higher quality and greater efficiency to clients, and strategic acquisitions. He takes a team approach to process improvement, involving staff at all levels of the organization to address issues, brainstorm solutions, and identify new and better ways to serve clients.

In 2008, Alan was recognized by Crain’s Cleveland Business in its annual “40-Under-40” profile of young leaders. He also was named a NEO Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year® Award finalist in 2013.

x

Esq., General Counsel and EVP

Linda Erkkila

Linda Erkkila is the General Counsel and Executive Vice President for Safeguard Properties, with oversight of legal, human resources, training, and compliance. Linda’s broad scope of oversight covers regulatory issues that impact Safeguard’s operations, risk mitigation, strategic planning, human resources and training initiatives, compliance, insurance, litigation and claims management, and counsel related to mergers, acquisition and joint ventures.

Linda assures that Safeguard’s strategic initiatives align with its resources, leverage opportunities across the company, and contemplate compliance mandates. She has practiced law for 25 years and her experience, both as outside and in-house counsel, covers a wide range of corporate matters, including regulatory disclosure, corporate governance compliance, risk assessment, compensation and benefits, litigation management, and mergers and acquisitions.

Linda earned her JD at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. She holds a degree in economics from Miami University and an MBA. Linda was previously named as both a “Woman of Influence” by HousingWire and as a “Leading Lady” by MReport.

x

COO

Michael Greenbaum

Michael Greenbaum is the Chief Operating Officer of Safeguard Properties, where he has played a pivotal role since joining the company in July 2010. Initially brought on as Vice President of REO, Mike’s exceptional leadership and strategic vision quickly propelled him to Vice President of Operations in 2013, and ultimately to COO in 2015. Over his 14-year tenure at Safeguard, Mike has been instrumental in driving change and fostering innovation within the Property Preservation sector, consistently delivering excellence and becoming a trusted partner to clients and investors.

A distinguished graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, Mike earned a degree in Quantitative Economics. Following his graduation, he served in the U.S. Army’s Ordnance Branch, where he specialized in supply chain management. Before his tenure at Safeguard, Mike honed his expertise by managing global supply chains for 13 years, leveraging his military and civilian experience to lead with precision and efficacy.

x

CFO

Joe Iafigliola

Joe Iafigliola is the Chief Financial Officer for Safeguard Properties. Joe is responsible for the Control, Quality Assurance, Business Development, Marketing, Accounting, and Information Security departments. At the core of his responsibilities is the drive to ensure that Safeguard’s focus remains rooted in Customer Service = Resolution. Through his executive leadership role, he actively supports SGPNOW.com, an on-demand service geared towards real estate and property management professionals as well as individual home owners in need of inspection and property preservation services. Joe is also an integral force behind Compliance Connections, a branch of Safeguard Properties that allows code enforcement professionals to report violations at properties that can then be addressed by the Safeguard vendor network. Compliance Connections also researches and shares vacant property ordinance information with Safeguard clients.

Joe has an MBA from The Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University, is a Certified Management Accountant (CMA), and holds a bachelor’s degree from The Ohio State University’s Honors Accounting program.

x

Business Development

Carrie Tackett

Business Development Safeguard Properties