HUD OIG Launches Integrity and Compliance Program

Investor Update
October 6, 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD OIG) is proud to announce the launch of an effort to establish an Integrity & Compliance Program (ICP). This program will demonstrate HUD OIG’s commitment to the public to maintain its high standard of integrity, and dedication to making values-based ethics the standard for its conduct.
 
HUD OIG’s goal with the ICP initiative is to incorporate integrity into every decision at every level.   The ICP initiative will go beyond typical government ethics programs which, by statute, are focused on matters of employee financial disclosure requirements and compliance with regulations prohibiting such things as conflicts of interest.  It will also incorporate robust whistleblower, ombudsman, and hotline programs.
 
 “By implementing an integrity program that emphasizes our office’s shared core values, we look to support our employees as they make tough decisions in their daily activities,” said David A. Montoya, Inspector General. “We also want to provide them guidance so they are prepared for instances when ethical dilemmas arise. As evidenced by recent events of misconduct in Executive branch departments and agencies, we recognize that a single act of misconduct can jeopardize an organization’s mission. I believe federal agencies should do more to incorporate a strong values-based ethics program that goes beyond the government’s current focus of ethics. It will allow us to employ a principled organizational culture and use our values, policies and principles to guide every decision we make and every action we take.”
 
HUD OIG elected to partner with the Ethics Research Center (link is external) (ERC), the research arm of the Ethics & Compliance Initiative (ECI), on this effort. ERC is America’s oldest non-profit organization devoted to independent research to advance high ethical standards and practices in public and private institutions. ERC will be reviewing HUD OIG’s current programs and soliciting input from leaders and employees about how they live their values and the challenges they face, and helping coordinate this data into the creation of a values-based ethics program for HUD OIG.
 
“We look forward to supporting HUD OIG in their development of systems and resources that will transform their existing program into a true values-based ethics program,” said Patricia J. Harned, Ph.D., CEO, ECI. “HUD is the first OIG to endeavor to create this type of program, which demonstrates their commitment to not only operating with integrity, but also their courage in providing a model for their broader Department and other agencies. We are proud to help them accomplish these goals.”

Source: HUD OIG

HUD Mortgagee Letter 2015-24: Single Family Foreclosure Policy and Procedural Changes for HUD Title II Forward Mortgages and Reverse Mortgages

Investor Update
October 1, 2015

Purpose
The purpose of this Mortgagee Letter is to update HUD’s:

  • Reasonable Diligence timeframes;
  • Schedule of Attorney Fees for all jurisdictions; and
  • Cash for Keys’ Relocation allowances

Effective Date
Effective Date The updated Reasonable Diligence timeframes are effective for all cases in which the First Legal Action to initiate foreclosure occurs on or after January 1, 2016.

The updated Schedule of Attorney Fees is effective for all cases in which any of the following actions occurs on or after January 1, 2016:

  • a first legal action to foreclose is initiated;
  • a bankruptcy clearance is undertaken;
  • a possessory action has begun; or
  • a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure is recorded.

 
The Cash for Keys’ Relocation allowances are effective for all FHA-insured
mortgages for which a foreclosure sale or non-conveyance transaction is scheduled on or after January 1, 2016.

Affected Policy
Beginning January 1, 2016, the policies set forth in this Mortgagee Letter supersede all prior Reasonable Diligence timeframes, Attorney Fee schedules and Cash for Keys’ Relocation allowances, including those outlined in Mortgagee Letters 2013-38 and 2002-13.

Source: HUD (Mortgagee Letter 2015-24 full version)

HUD Mortgagee Letter 2015-23: New Single Family Mortgagee Compliance Manager (MCM)

Investor Update
October 1, 2015

New Mortgagee Compliance Manager

Beginning October 1, 2015, ISN is responsible for assigned Mortgagee Compliance Compliance Manager functions including:

  • Reviewing Requests for Extensions of Time to Convey
  • Processing Occupied Conveyance Requests
  • Reviewing the approval of reimbursable expenses for Preservation & Protection Overallowable Requests (including those properties securing Home Equity Conversion Mortgages)
  • Reviewing Requests to Convey Properties with Surchargeable Damage
  • Conducting Title Reviews and verifying Deed/Document Execution
  • Processing Requests for Pre-conveyance Inspections
  • Conducting Reviews of Claim Parts A, B, C, and D
  • Tracking and Pursuing Administrative Remedies (e.g., Monetary Demands, Offsets, and Re-conveyances)

 

Source: HUD (Mortgagee Letter 2015-23 full version)

HUD Mortgagee Letter 2015-21: Automatic Extensions to HUD’s Initiation of Foreclosure Timeline

Investor Update
September 28, 2015

This Mortgagee Letter provides guidance relating to HUD’s regulatory requirement for mortgagees to utilize a Loss Mitigation Option or initiate foreclosure within six months of the date of default. Specifically, this Mortgagee Letter:

  • reiterates the existing eight automatic extensions available to mortgagees when they are unable to initiate foreclosure within the allotted timeframe; and
  • introduces two new automatic extensions to align with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Regulation X.

 

Source: HUD (Mortgagee Letter 2015-21 full version)

GAO-15-783: FEMA Needs to Cohesively Manage Its Workforce and Fully Address Post-Katrina Reforms

Investor Update
September 29, 2015

What GAO Found
 
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has more than tripled the number of contracting officers it employs since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, but it does not have a sufficient process in place to prioritize disaster workload and cohesively manage its workforce. Some of the workforce growth is attributed to the establishment of the Disaster Acquisition Response Team (DART) in 2010, which has the primary mission of deploying to provide disaster contracting support, such as contracting for blankets or debris removal. DART has gradually assumed responsibility for administering the majority of disaster contract spending, but FEMA does not have a process for prioritizing the team’s work during disasters. Without such a process, FEMA is at risk of developing gaps in contract oversight during major disasters. Further, in 2011, FEMA established an agreement that regional contracting officers would report to headquarters supervisors for technical oversight while continuing to respond to regional supervisors—who have responsibility for administrative duties—for everyday operations. This agreement has led to challenges for FEMA in cohesively managing its workforce, including heightening the potential for an environment of competing interests for the regional contracting officers. Further, FEMA has not revisited this agreement on annual basis as called for in the agreement. As a result, it does not incorporate lessons learned since its creation 4 years ago.
 
FEMA has not fully implemented 2006 Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) contracting reforms due in part to incomplete guidance.

Why GAO Did This Study
 
FEMA obligated $2.1 billion in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 for products and services, which included almost $770 million from offices responsible for disaster contracting. Providing disaster relief in a timely manner is essential, while adhering to contracting laws and regulations helps safeguard taxpayer dollars. Following Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed PKEMRA to improve FEMA’s disaster contracting.
 
GAO was asked to review FEMA’s disaster contracting practices. This report assesses the extent to which FEMA (1) made efforts to build and manage its contracting workforce and structure since PKEMRA, and (2) adopted PKEMRA reforms and demonstrated good management practices for disaster contracting.
 
GAO analyzed data on FEMA’s workforce from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, reviewed workforce guidance, and reviewed 27 contracts—including 16 selected through a random sample and 11 through a nonprobability sample based on factors including high cost—to determine the extent to which PKEMRA provisions were met. GAO also met with contracting officials.
 
What GAO Recommends
 
GAO recommends, among other things, that the FEMA Administrator establish procedures to prioritize DART’s workload, revisit the agreement for oversight of regional contracting officers, and improve guidance on PKEMRA requirements. DHS concurred with GAO’s recommendations.
 
For more information, contact Michele Mackin at (202) 512-4841 or mackinm@gao.gov.

Source: GAO

Additional Resources:

GAO-15-783 Full Report [pdf]

Freddie Mac Announces Relief for Eligible Borrowers, Employers, Employees in South Carolina Disaster Areas

Investor Update
October 6, 2015

We’re making our full menu of disaster relief policies available to homeowners whose homes were damaged or destroyed by the powerful storms that swept through South Carolina. Freddie Mac’s disaster relief policies are available to borrowers with homes in presidentially declared Major Disaster Areas where federal Individual Assistance programs are being made available to affected individuals and households. A list of these areas can be found at http://www.fema.gov/disasters ..
 
Freddie Mac strongly encourages South Carolinians whose homes or businesses were harmed by Hurricane Joaquin’s torrential downpours to call their mortgage servicer (the company to which they send their monthly mortgage payment) as soon as possible. If their mortgage is owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac they may qualify for our full range of mortgage relief options. These options include forbearance on mortgage payments for up to one year.

  • Freddie Mac mortgage relief options for affected borrowers in these areas include: Suspending foreclosures by providing forbearance for up to 12 months;
  • Waiving assessments of penalties or late fees against borrowers with disaster-damaged homes; and
  • Not reporting forbearance or delinquencies caused by the disaster to the nation’s credit bureaus.
  • Freddie Mac is also reminding servicers that disaster relief policies are not limited to those borrowers whose homes reside in eligible disaster areas, but also to those borrowers whose place of employment resides in an eligible disaster area

Again, borrowers whose home or place of business is in a disaster area, borrowers should immediately contact their mortgage servicer – the company to which they send their monthly mortgage payment.

Source: Freddie Mac

FHLMC Guide Bulletin 2015-18: Updates to State Foreclosure Time Lines and Modification Requirements

Investor Update
October 14, 2015

In today’s Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide (Guide) Bulletin 2015-18, and in response to your feedback, we announced updates to state foreclosure time lines and compensatory fees, modification requirements, and other changes.

Key Highlights

  • Updated Guide Exhibit 83, Freddie Mac State Foreclosure Time Lines, to extend state foreclosure time lines in 34 of 55 jurisdictions, effective for all foreclosure sales completed on or after August 1, 2015.
  • Extended the temporary suspension of assessment and billing of state foreclosure time line compensatory fees in certain jurisdictions announced in Guide Bulletin 2014-19 [PDF].
  • Simplified the calculation and assessment of state foreclosure time line compensatory fees. The billing methodology for mortgages referred to foreclosure prior to October 1, 2011, is now more closely aligned with the billing methodology for mortgages referred to foreclosure on or after October 1, 2011. Refer to our new Quick Reference [PDF] for details.

Other servicing requirement updates include:

  • Notifications for the HAMP Year Six Pay for Performance incentive [PDF].
  • Eligible hardships for a simultaneous assumption and modification.
  • Expenditures related to lender-placed insurance.
  • Attorney fee reimbursement amounts for certain bankruptcy services.

Please read Guide Bulletin 2015-18 for more details on these updates and additional requirement changes.

For More Information

 

Source: Freddie Mac

FHLMC Guide Bulletin 2015-17: Origination Defects and Remedies Framework Announced

Investor Update
October 7, 2015

In Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide (Guide) Bulletin 2015-17, we’re announcing an origination defects and remedies framework (the “remedies framework”), effective for mortgages with Freddie Mac settlement dates on or after January 1, 2016. The framework provides you with more clarity on how we categorize origination defects, Seller corrections of defects and available remedies. This framework expands the selling representation and warranty framework and will help you manage risk more effectively.

We’re announcing the remedies framework jointly with Fannie Mae at the direction of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
 
The following are highlights of the framework included in the Bulletin:

  • Categories of defects. After a quality control (QC) review of a loan, origination defects, if any, fall into one of three categories. This determines whether the Seller can correct the defect and what remedy is required.
  • Definitions. New terms have been added to the Guide to help you understand the application of the remedies framework.
  • Remedying origination defects. We’ve outlined our four-step process that we will follow to categorize origination defects, Seller corrections of the defects and available remedies.
  • Please take advantage of our Quality Control Information Manager and Freddie Mac Loan Coverage Advisor® to help you manage the QC review process and track the representation and warranty relief dates for loans you’ve sold us.

For More Information

Source: Freddie Mac

FHFA Prepared Remarks of Melvin Watt

Investor Update
October 19, 2015

Mortgage Bankers Association’s Annual Convention and Expo 2015

Thank you for that introduction and for inviting me back to your annual convention again this year.  It’s a pleasure to be here with Secretary Castro and Director Cordray.

At the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), we place a high priority on engaging with a broad cross section of stakeholders, including the Mortgage Bankers Association and its members, about the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) and about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises).  This dialogue has been especially important as FHFA continues to manage and oversee the Enterprises, which are now into their eighth year of conservatorship.  I hope all of you share our view that this dialogue is mutually beneficial. 

To further our ongoing conversation, I’d like to update you today about some of the things we’ve been doing since I spoke to you last year and give you an idea of where we expect to head on some key initiatives in 2016.  I believe you will find that these comments underscore our commitment to continue to innovate as we strive to accomplish our statutory mandates to, among other things, foster liquidity and efficiency in the housing finance markets and to do so in a safe and sound manner.  

Common Securitization Platform and Single Security

Let me begin with our work to build the CSP and develop the Single Security.  These are both big multiyear initiatives that will change the way the Enterprises issue securities and make the housing finance market more efficient.  These initiatives may also change how private companies issue securities in the future, since we have committed to using technology that will make the CSP adaptable for use by other secondary market participants. 

During the course of this year, we have worked to build and test an increasing amount of the operations and architecture of the CSP.  At the center of this work is Common Securitization Solutions (CSS), LLC, which is the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac joint venture that is now responsible for developing and running the CSP.  In 2015, CSS released updated software to the Enterprises to further their testing processes.  In addition, an Industry Advisory Group of stakeholders has started having formal meetings with the Enterprises and CSS.  We believe that this is an invaluable forum for feedback and discussion about the CSP and Single Security.

During 2015, we have also worked to define the parameters of the new Single Security.  The progress report we issued earlier this year provides important details about how the Single Security will look and operate.  I encourage each of you to read this report if you have not already done so and to continue to provide your input as we work aggressively to move this initiative across the finish line.   

We recently announced that the CSP and Single Security efforts will be launched in two stages.  In the first stage, which we are calling Release 1, the CSP will begin issuing and administering only Freddie Mac’s securities.  In the second phase, Release 2, the CSP will begin issuing and administering securities for both Enterprises and will do so using the new Single Security for the first time. 

We realize that there is a degree of impatience and a desire to see all these efforts completed right away.  While I’m not in a position to give you specific dates right now, I can confirm that we plan to announce the Release 1 timeline in 2016.  We also hope to be able to announce the Release 2 timeline next year.  When we do announce the Release 2 timeline, rest assured that we will meet our commitment to provide at least one year of advance notice before any go live date. 

Meeting both of these objectives will require continued testing and sustained progress of the kind we have had to date.  It will also require much more dialogue between CSS, the Enterprises, FHFA and multiple other stakeholders.  We share your sense of urgency, and I assure you that we are moving expeditiously, but responsibly, to launch the CSP and the Single Security.

Credit Risk Transfer Transactions

Another long-term priority for FHFA is our work with the Enterprises to transfer credit risk to the private sector through various financial transactions.  This initiative ensures that the private sector continues to assume meaningful credit risk, with the Enterprises remaining as backstops to cover catastrophic risk.  Since 2013, the Enterprises have transferred a significant portion of credit risk on single-family mortgages with a total unpaid principal balance exceeding $700 billion.  Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are on track to exceed our 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard credit risk transfer objectives by comfortable margins. 

As the Enterprises have gotten these risk transfer transactions up and running, we have been strategic about which loans to target.  Instead of using a random sample of Enterprise loans, we have targeted new loan purchases with the greatest credit risk.  The targeted loans include new acquisitions of 30-year fixed-rate mortgages that have loan-to-value (LTV) ratios exceeding 60 percent, excluding HARP refinances.  The Enterprises are currently transferring significant credit risk on approximately 90 percent of these targeted loans, the bread and butter of their single-family purchases.  This approach has made the transactions easier to scale up and more economical, with the Enterprises and taxpayers getting a greater bang for their buck.

As part of our next steps, we want to refine and further standardize the Enterprises’ debt, reinsurance and upfront offerings.  This will help broaden liquidity.  We will continue to work with the Enterprises on other innovative transaction types, such as credit-linked notes.  We will also aggressively continue our work to analyze, assess, and define upfront credit risk transfers.  We are committed to engaging stakeholders as part of this process. 

While a great deal has been accomplished in a short time, it is still early in the development of the risk transfer market.  FHFA and both Enterprises are committed to building on our recent progress, and we view credit risk transfers as a key part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s credit guarantee business going forward. 

Access to Credit

As we continue to explore innovative CSP, Single Security and risk transfer initiatives, let me assure you that we have not lessened our conservatorship efforts to improve market liquidity by exploring ways to improve access to credit for creditworthy borrowers.  Last year, I spoke to you about the important clarifications that FHFA and the Enterprises were making to the life-of-loan exclusions in the Representations and Warranties Framework, and I announced that FHFA had authorized the Enterprises to launch a 3 percent down payment product offering.  Both of these measures were carefully designed to move the needle on access to credit for responsible borrowers without jeopardizing the safety and soundness of the Enterprises, and both of these measures are now being implemented responsibly and successfully.

In 2015, we also continued to pursue other efforts to provide clarity and transparency on Enterprise practices.  Earlier this month, the Enterprises published guidance that for the first time defines severity levels for loan origination defects and establishes a process for lenders to correct or remedy those defects to the extent practicable.  This new approach calibrates the severity of a defect with the remedy and results in only the most serious defects raising the possibility of a loan repurchase. 

The Enterprises also anticipate releasing updated guidance on servicing remedies by the end of this year.  These clarifications will provide servicers with more transparency on the types of remedies available for servicing breaches and will specifically identify the limited circumstances that would trigger a loan repurchase. 

The Enterprises are also continuing their work to develop an independent dispute resolution program to be used to resolve contested disputes about repurchase requests.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac completed a pilot of their independent dispute resolution program design over the summer, and they are now completing assessments of the pilot to inform the final program design. 

An effort that will not be completed this year but will carry over into next year is the work that has been taking place about possible appraisal-related representation and warranty relief.  Both Enterprises have developed tools that provide lenders feedback about appraisal quality and are now using these tools in independent pilots to assess the feasibility of representation and warranty relief on the value of collateral.  These pilots are in their very early stages.  But throughout 2016, we will continue our efforts to provide as much certainty on appraisal-related issues as is possible.

Each of these efforts is intended to provide more certainty to lenders and to do so in a way that is safe and sound for the Enterprises.  We anticipate that greater certainty will translate into fewer credit overlays, lower costs for borrowers, and greater access to credit for creditworthy borrowers.  As I said last year, we expect this to be a two-way street.  FHFA will continue to do what we can to provide certainty and thereby reduce the unintended consequences that follow from uncertainty in the market.  But, we are looking for lenders in return to take the necessary steps to serve creditworthy borrowers who are currently sitting on the sidelines. 

Affordable Rental Housing

While access to mortgage credit and homeownership are critically important, we also remain focused on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s role in supporting liquidity in the multifamily market, and we are especially focused on their roles in support of affordable rental housing.  Households across the country are paying more and more of their income toward rent.  Half of all renters now spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing and 26 percent of renters spend more than 50 percent.  Both of these are sharp increases over the last decade, and we expect these challenges in the rental market to continue.  

Each Enterprise utilizes a different multifamily business model that supports rental housing affordability while also sharing significant credit risk with the private sector.  The Enterprises offer affordable, long-term, fixed-rate loans that enable property owners to have a stable, sustainable mortgage payment and reduce the need to increase rents charged to tenants.  Over 70 percent of rental units financed by the Enterprises over the last few years have been affordable to low-income households. 

The Enterprises’ multifamily programs benefit from strong underwriting standards and correspondingly strong performance, which they sustained throughout the economic crisis.  Because of the credit risk these programs transfer to the private sector, taxpayers are well shielded from losses on Enterprise-supported multifamily loans.

Our annual Scorecard has included a cap on the Enterprises’ multifamily lending volume, with exceptions to the cap for certain affordable lending activities.  Earlier this year, we broadened the categories of affordable multifamily lending that were excluded from FHFA’s cap.  We made these adjustments because the multifamily market grew more rapidly in the first half of 2015 than we had projected and because we wanted the Enterprises to prioritize multifamily purchases of affordable housing.

Looking ahead to next year, FHFA expects to maintain our $30 billion cap for each Enterprise for market rate properties.  To avoid the kind of uncertainty we experienced last year, however, we will institute a quarterly review process to make necessary adjustments if the market grows beyond our initial projections.

We anticipate that next year’s Scorecard will also maintain the broadened list of exclusions from the cap that we put in place earlier this year.  This means that we will continue to exclude from the cap loans for affordable properties, including those in higher-cost areas.  We will also continue to exclude certain loans for manufactured housing communities, as well as seniors housing and small multifamily properties affordable to low-income tenants.  Beginning in 2016, FHFA expects to add two new exclusions – loans for low-income apartments in rural areas and loans for energy efficiency improvements that meet our eligibility criteria.  
 
Our Scorecard priorities as conservator align with the housing goals regulation we recently finalized for 2015-2017.  In most cases, we increased the goals for the number of affordable multifamily units that we expect the Enterprises to support.  We also required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to meet identical multifamily housing goals for the first time.  In light of the strong state of the multifamily market and the need for more affordable units, we believe these goals are both achievable and critical. 

In 2016, we also plan to finalize a Duty to Serve rule, which will encourage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to innovate responsibly in the areas of affordable housing preservation, housing in rural areas, and manufactured housing.  Our re-proposed rule on Duty to Serve is forthcoming, and we look forward to getting feedback from all stakeholders. 

Federal Home Loan Banks

Before I conclude, I’m sure a number of you would like for me to say something about the rule FHFA has proposed related to several aspects of Federal Home Loan Bank membership.  Unfortunately, legal constraints prevent me from saying much about this because we are in the period between the end of the comment period and the time we issue the final rule.  I can tell you, however, that we have completed our review of the 1,300-plus comments submitted on the proposed rule, and we are making a concerted effort to finalize the final rule by the end of this year and, if not, certainly within the first quarter of 2016. 

Conclusion

The Federal Housing Finance Agency faces a number of challenges in our role as regulator of the Federal Home Loan Banks and our role as regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  We have found that substantial new thinking and innovation will be required in all aspects of the housing finance market to meet the needs of both homeowners and the growing number of renters struggling to afford housing.  My remarks today have touched on only a few of the initiatives we are undertaking to meet these challenges.  But I hope these comments have provided some insight into our thinking as we approach 2016. 

Thank you again for inviting me to be here today.

Contacts: Media: Stefanie Johnson (202) 649-3030 / Corinne Russell (202) 649-3032
Consumers: Consumer Communications or (202) 649-3811

Source: FHFA

FHFA AB 2015-07 Fraud Risk Management

Investor Update
September 29, 2015

Purpose

This Advisory Bulletin communicates to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) supervisory expectations for fraud risk management, including the establishment and maintenance of internal controls to prevent, deter, and detect fraud or possible fraud. 

Background

Effective fraud risk management is essential to the safe and sound operations of the Enterprises.  Potential exposure to the risk of fraud exists in Enterprise business operations.  For example, single-family and multifamily mortgage operations have exposure to the risk of fraud associated with activities of borrowers, loan originators, mortgage brokers, loan sellers, attorneys, servicers, appraisers, property managers, and third parties engaged to perform functions relating to loans or the collateral securing the loans.  Capital markets activities may expose an Enterprise to fraud committed by counterparties involved in securitizations.  The Enterprises also have potential exposure to fraud risk resulting from insider malfeasance.[1]

Fraud may subject an Enterprise to financial, operational, legal, or reputational harm.  For example, mortgage fraud may result in financial losses for an Enterprise if a seller does not have the financial ability and willingness to honor its obligation to repurchase fraudulent loans.  Other types of fraud may result in financial losses if the fraud is not fully covered by fidelity bond insurance.  An Enterprise may be exposed to litigation or civil money penalties for failure to comply with fraud-related statutes and regulations.  Further, fraud may cause reputational risk if an Enterprise’s operations are used or perceived to be used to perpetrate fraud.  While experience demonstrates that fraud may not be prevented completely, it may be deterred or reduced through appropriate anti-fraud procedures that are maintained and reviewed over time.

Examples of Fraud

The Enterprises may encounter various types of fraud.  For example, mortgage fraud may occur in mortgage loans purchased for an Enterprise’s own portfolios or for securitization.  Fraud may be committed as part of the origination, underwriting, or closing process or in conjunction with the servicing of a loan on behalf of an Enterprise. 

Mortgage-related fraud may be committed by various participants in the origination, selling, and servicing of mortgage loans.  Borrowers may provide false identification, employment, or income information to obtain approval for a mortgage loan.  Parties involved in loan originations, such as appraisers, attorneys, and title agencies, may engage in misrepresentation of collateral or performance of contracted responsibilities, or through diversion of funds.  Sellers of mortgage loans may misrepresent underwriting standards or deliver a single mortgage loan multiple times.  Servicers may divert custodial or other funds received to accounts used for their own purposes. 

Mortgage-related fraud may be part of larger schemes that include originating mortgage loans through the use of straw borrowers, illegal property flipping, double-pledging of collateral, and builder bailouts.  Post-origination mortgage fraud may target financially distressed borrowers to steal equity in or secure title to a property through fraudulent workout schemes or short sales. 

Insider fraud (i.e., fraud involving current or former employees and contractors) may include accounting fraud, payroll fraud, embezzlement, or collaboration with external parties in a fraud against an Enterprise or other financial institution. 

The wide variation of possible fraudulent activities creates a broad range of fraud risk; therefore, an Enterprise should implement a risk-based approach to fraud risk management that takes into account the scope and potential harm to the Enterprise of possible fraud.

Guidance

This Advisory Bulletin describes FHFA’s expectations for the oversight of fraud risk management, key elements of a risk-based approach to fraud risk management, and the training and independent testing functions that should accompany an Enterprise’s fraud risk management approach.  As described below, FHFA expects the Enterprises will take steps to manage fraud risk in all business lines and operational functions.[2]

Oversight of Fraud Risk Management

Each Enterprise’s board of directors has a responsibility to ensure that the Enterprise’s management is committed to effective fraud risk management and that the Enterprise has appropriate policies for preventing and detecting fraud or possible fraud.  The Enterprise should have documented processes in place to appropriately inform the board about fraud risk management activities and significant instances of fraud or possible fraud.  Fraud risk should be included in the risk management policies that are approved by the board or a committee thereof, and reviewed on a periodic basis. 

The policies should establish the Enterprise’s standards and reporting processes relating to fraud and possible fraud.  The policies should designate the management official(s) responsible for the oversight of fraud risk management and define specific roles and responsibilities for personnel with fraud risk management responsibilities. 

Enterprise management should develop and oversee the implementation of business unit policies and procedures to implement and support anti-fraud and regulatory reporting programs and controls consistent with the Enterprise’s policies.  Business unit policies should detail the Enterprise’s fraud risk management processes, including risk assessments, internal controls, training, independent testing, fraud response protocols, and board and senior management reporting. 

The Enterprise should provide for appropriate coordination across business lines and functions of fraud risk management activities and resources.  Areas of coordination may include risk assessments, oversight of the design and implementation of anti-fraud and regulatory reporting programs and controls, and reporting to senior management and the board or a committee thereof, as appropriate, the results of the Enterprise’s fraud risk management efforts. 

Elements of Fraud Risk Management

Effective fraud risk management should include:

  • Ongoing risk assessments to determine areas of heightened risk for possible fraud and adequacy of the control environment.
  • Risk-based internal controls that are designed to prevent and deter fraud from occurring.
  • Risk-based internal controls that are designed to detect fraud when it occurs.
  • Processes for responding to and reporting fraud or possible fraud.

Risk Assessments

An Enterprise should have an ongoing process for performing risk assessments to identify and assess risk of fraud and to evaluate controls in place to mitigate risk.  Risk assessments should consider factors such as products, services, customers, counterparties, and geographic locations, and should cover business units and operational and control functions.  Fraud risk assessments should provide the basis for internal controls to prevent and deter fraud and to detect fraud or possible fraud.  An Enterprise should have in place a process for periodically updating fraud risk assessments and making associated changes to internal controls. 

Fraud Prevention and Deterrence

Each Enterprise should maintain effective internal controls designed to prevent and deter fraud.  The type and scale of internal controls will vary depending on the operational area, product type, and fraud risk.  Types of controls include segregation of duties; a system of proper authorizations; physical safeguards to prohibit access to assets and records; a system of independent checks; and records to provide an audit trail. 

Internal controls should be clearly documented and subject to ongoing review to determine whether they are followed, are effective, and reflect current industry sound practices.  With regard to potential insider fraud, policies related to the consequences of committing or concealing fraud should be communicated clearly to all personnel. 

Fraud Detection

The complexity and extent of the internal controls for detection of different types of potential fraud in different business activities should be based on the fraud risk assessment, in light of the size, structure, risks, complexity, and vulnerability to fraud of the particular activity.  Fraud detection controls and tools may include, but are not limited to, internal and external tip hotlines; whistleblower vehicles; audits; quality control reviews; and analysis of financial, operational, and transaction data.  Detection methods may involve a review of transactions for possible fraud and, where possible, should include a review for red flags that indicate fraud or possible fraud.  Examples of red flags may include patterns of inconsistency in borrower information, loan documentation, servicer records, and significant servicer performance issues, as well as adverse public information.  Additionally, an Enterprise may identify individuals and firms known to have been involved in fraud.  Fraud detection procedures should document when findings will warrant the expansion of the scope of review consistent with current risk assessments.

Each Enterprise should have adequate information systems to timely capture information needed to detect fraud or possible fraud and comply with regulatory reporting requirements. 

Fraud Response and Reporting

Each Enterprise should have documented processes for evaluating and responding to various types of possible fraud and for complying with regulatory reporting requirements.  An Enterprise should take steps to make its employees and third parties aware of methods by which they may report possible fraud relating to Enterprise operations.  Furthermore, an Enterprise should ensure that its procedures and resources are sufficient to timely investigate possible fraud. 

An Enterprise’s process should address investigation procedures, protocols for gathering evidence, decision-making authority, internal and regulatory reporting, escalation protocols, remedial action, and disclosure.  Individuals assigned to investigations should have the necessary training, authority, and skills to evaluate possible fraud and determine the appropriate course of action.  The process should include a tracking or case management system(s) where allegations of fraud are logged.  As appropriate, an Enterprise’s procedures should also include a review of incidents to determine if improvements need to be made to processes or internal control systems to prevent future incidents of possible fraud. 

Each Enterprise should have effective, risk-based processes to timely investigate potential fraud to minimize and prevent loss.  Procedures should be in place for reporting investigation findings regarding fraud or possible fraud in accordance with regulatory requirements and Enterprise policy. 

Training

Each Enterprise should promote fraud awareness by conveying the importance of fraud prevention and penalties for fraud to all employees.  Each Enterprise should provide and document adequate fraud risk management training that is risk-based and commensurate with trainees’ roles and specific responsibilities.  Training should include instruction on regulatory requirements and the Enterprise’s policies and procedures to comply with those requirements.  Board and senior management training should reflect their oversight role.  Training should be updated as needed to reflect regulatory changes and industry sound practices, as well as changes to the Enterprise’s risk assessments and internal controls. 

Independent Testing

Each Enterprise should conduct regular independent testing in all business lines to determine the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the Enterprise’s fraud risk management.  Testing scope, procedures performed, and findings should be documented.

Related FHFA Guidance

Enterprise Fraud Reporting, Federal Housing Finance Agency Advisory Bulletin 2015-02, March 26, 2015, communicates to the Enterprises FHFA’s fraud reporting requirements pursuant to 12 CFR Part 1233.

Oversight of Single-Family Seller/Servicer Relationships, Federal Housing Finance Agency Advisory Bulletin 2014-07, December 1, 2014, communicates to the Enterprises FHFA’s supervisory expectations for managing counterparty risk associated with their relationships with single-family Seller/Servicers.

Suspended Counterparty Program at 12 CFR Part 1227, generally sets forth the requirements by which each regulated entity submits reports to FHFA when it becomes aware that an individual or institution with which it has been engaged in a covered transaction (as such term is defined in the regulation) within the previous three years has been convicted, debarred, suspended, or otherwise sanctioned, based on specified financial misconduct.  FHFA may issue suspension orders in appropriate cases, requiring the regulated entities to cease doing business with such individuals or institutions.

[1] For purposes of this Advisory Bulletin, fraud occurs when a person(s), knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up a material fact by any trick, scheme, or device; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.

[2] The risk management guidance in this Advisory Bulletin complements the requirements for reporting fraud and possible fraud found in: (i) 12 C.F.R. Part 1233, Reporting of Fraudulent Financial Instruments; (ii) 31 C.F.R. Parts 1010 and 1030, Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Housing Government Sponsored Enterprises; and (iii) Advisory Bulletin 2015-02, Enterprise Fraud Reporting (March 26, 2015).

Advisory Bulletins communicate guidance to FHFA supervision staff and the regulated entities on specific supervisory matters pertaining to the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.  This advisory bulletin is effective immediately upon issuance.  Contact Bobbi Montoya, Associate Director, Examination Standards Branch at Bobbi.Montoya@fhfa.gov or (202) 649-3406, Kathy Beach, Principal Advisor, Office os Supervision Policy at Kathy.Beach@fhfa.gov or (202) 649-3521, or Ellen Joyce, Principal Risk Analyst, Risk Analysis Branch at Ellen.Joyce@fhfa.gov or (202) 649-3409 with comments or questions pertaining to this bulletin.   
 
Attachments: Advisory Bulletin 2015-07

Source: FHFA

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