MCM UpDate Issue #18

Investor Update
September 22, 2015

A Newsletter for Mortgagee Compliance

MCB Bids Farewell as MCM

MCB Finishes a Great Run as HUD’s First National Mortgagee Compliance Manager. 

In our final MCM UpDate, we reflect on our years as MCM, let you know about MCB’s future plans to provide FHA Conveyance Compliance Services to the Mortgage Industry, and leave Mortgagees with some parting words of advice. 

Source: MCB

HUD Mortgagee Letter 2015-20: Revision of Notice to Occupants of Pending Acquisition (NOPA)

Investor Update
September 15, 2015

This Mortgagee Letter includes the following:

  • A sample of the Notice to Occupants of Pending Acquisition (NOPA)
  • Request for Occupied Conveyance – form HUD-9539 (NOPA Attachment 1)
  • Conditions for Continued Occupancy (NOPA Attachment 3)
  • Temporary Nature of Continued Occupancy (NOPA Attachment 4)

 
Mortgagees must make any additional changes to the revised sample NOPA that are required to be compliant with federal, state, or local laws. In addition, Mortgagees may use their company’s proprietary standard employment verification form for NOPA Attachment 2.

To access the above-referenced NOPA and Attachments 3 and 4, Mortgagees must visit HUD’s Single Family Mortgages Documents page at: http://portal.hud.

Source: HUD (Mortgagee Letter 2015-20 full version)

HUD Announces Relief for Victims of Hurricane Sandy

Investor Update
September 16, 2015

Department will not require repayment of “duplicate” benefits from most homeowners

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today decided that HUD will not force thousands of New York and New Jersey homeowners to repay federal disaster recovery funds following a decision by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to increase flood insurance claim payments to families it initially underpaid following Hurricane Sandy.

Federal law provides HUD the discretion to weigh the real-world recovery challenges faced by many of these families against another legal requirement that prohibits any federal ‘duplication of benefits.’

Today, Harriet Tregoning, HUD’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, informed state and local leaders in the Sandy-impacted region that additional flood insurance proceeds up to $20,000 will not be subject to a duplication of benefits review or collection.  This will eliminate the need for HUD grantees to reclaim assistance from these households, or to repay those funds through non-federal sources.  To date, 3-out-of-4 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claimants received less than $20,000 in additional compensation from FEMA and would not face any possible repayment.

Families who received/will receive more than $20,000 in additional flood insurance payments will still have the opportunity to demonstrate the added claim payments address legitimate unmet needs and therefore are not duplicative.

“These families have suffered enough and shouldn’t be further victimized through no fault of their own,” said Tregoning.  “We have a larger responsibility to facilitate recovery, not to hinder it just because these families didn’t receive sufficient flood insurance payments.”

HUD determined that below $20,000, any benefit gained by going through a protracted process of reexamining and documenting costs incurred by homeowners would not outweigh the larger financial and human costs associated with doing so.  For those NFIP policyholders who receive more than $20,000 in additional claim payments, HUD will require its grantees (primarily New York State, New York City, and the State of New Jersey) to determine whether any amount over $20,000 duplicates federal assistance already provided.

Background:

On October 29th, 2012, Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast of the United States, damaging or destroying 650,000 homes and generating nearly 145,000 claims from homeowners to FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  Thousands of these policyholders received insufficient flood insurance payments due to alleged fraud on the part of FEMA contractors charged with determining damage payouts.  FEMA invited homeowners to appeal their claim payments which resulted (and will continue to result) in additional flood insurance payments.

The Stafford Act requires the Federal Government and its state and local grantees to assure that any Federal assistance deemed duplicative to be repaid.  Prior to the decision announced today, many public leaders and homeowners alike expressed concerns that any additional FEMA flood insurance payments would trigger the law’s prohibition against duplication of benefits.  However, the Act also gives HUD’s Secretary discretion in those cases where recovering any duplicated benefits would not be in the Federal Government’s interest.

Source: HUD

GAO-15-813: Troubled Asset Relief Program: Status of GAO Recommendations

Investor Update
September 4, 2015

What GAO Found
 
As of August 2015, GAO’s performance audits of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) activities have resulted in 72 recommendations to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Treasury has implemented 59 of the 72 recommendations (about 82 percent), some of which were aimed at improving transparency and internal controls of TARP. The status of the remaining recommendations is as follows:
 
Treasury has partially implemented four of the recommendations—that is, it has taken some steps toward implementation but needs to take more actions. All four recommendations are directed at the Making Home Affordable (MHA) program, a collection of housing programs designed to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. The recommendations call for Treasury to, for example, issue guidance and monitor servicer compliance on working with borrowers with limited English proficiency. Treasury issued applicable guidance and obtained the policies of the larger MHA servicers, but has not assessed the implementation of those policies at the servicers.
 
Three recommendations remain open—that is, Treasury has not taken steps to implement them. Among these open recommendations are one directed at the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), which provided capital to certain U.S. financial institutions, and two recommendations directed at the MHA housing programs. For example, in July 2015, GAO recommended that Treasury establish a standard process to better ensure that changes to TARP-funded MHA programs are based on comprehensive benefit-cost analyses. Treasury told GAO they would consider these recommendations at the time the recommendations were made.
 
Six recommendations have been closed but were not implemented. Four are related to CPP and MHA and two to other TARP activities. Generally, Treasury did not take action before the programs evolved or began to wind down, and therefore GAO determined that the recommendations were outdated and no longer applicable.

Why GAO Did This Study
 
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) authorized the creation of TARP to address the most severe crisis that the financial system had faced in decades. Treasury has been the primary agency responsible for TARP programs. EESA provided GAO with broad oversight authorities for actions taken under TARP and included a provision that GAO report at least every 60 days on TARP activities and performance.
 
This 60-day report describes the status of GAO’s TARP performance audit recommendations to Treasury as of August 2015. In particular, this report discusses Treasury’s implementation of GAO’s recommendations, focusing on two programs: CPP and MHA. GAO’s methodologies included assessing relevant documentation from Treasury, interviewing Treasury officials, and reviewing prior TARP reports issued by GAO.
 
What GAO Recommends
 
GAO continues to maintain that Treasury should take action to fully implement the four partially implemented recommendations and three open recommendations.
 
For more information, contact Daniel Garcia-Diaz at (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov or Mathew J. Scire at (202) 512-8678 or sciremj@gao.gov

Source: GAO

Additional Resources:

GAO-15-813 Full Report [pdf]

GAO-15-631: Lender Placed Insurance: More Robust Data Could Improve Oversight

Investor Update
September 8, 2015

What GAO Found
 
Mortgage servicers purchase lender-placed insurance (LPI) for mortgages whose borrower-purchased insurance coverage lapses, most often because of nonpayment by the borrower or cancellation or nonrenewal by the original insurer. The limited information available indicates that LPI generally affects 1 percent to 2 percent of all mortgaged properties annually and has become less prevalent since the 2007-2009 financial crisis as foreclosures have declined. Although used more often when borrowers without escrow accounts (about 25 percent to 40 percent of borrowers) stop paying their insurance premiums, servicers also use LPI when an insurer declines to renew a policy. LPI insurers often provide services such as tracking properties to help servicers identify those without insurance and confirming coverage. LPI insurers said they must refund premiums if a borrower provides evidence of coverage, which occurs on about 10 percent of policies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency offers flood LPI, but industry officials said most servicers prefer private coverage because of more comprehensive coverage and lower rates, among other things.
 
LPI premium rates are higher than rates for borrower-purchased insurance, and stakeholders disagreed about whether the difference is justified. Insurers pointed out that they provide coverage for any property in a servicer’s portfolio without a rigorous underwriting process, and the limited information requires higher rates. They added that LPI properties tended to have higher risk characteristics, such as higher-risk locations (along the coast) and higher vacancy rates because of foreclosures. But some consumer advocates and state regulators said that the factors that insurers cite for higher rates, as well as the insurers’ limited loss histories, do not justify the magnitude of the premium differences. They also said borrowers have little influence over the price of LPI and that some insurers competed for the servicers’ business by providing commissions to the servicer that passed the costs on to the borrower through higher premium rates. Insurers, however, said that LPI premium rates were filed with and approved by state regulators and that commissions were a standard industry practice, but their use had decreased.
 
State insurance regulators have primary responsibility for overseeing LPI insurers, but federal financial regulators generally oversee the servicers that purchase LPI coverage for their portfolios. However, a lack of comprehensive data at the state and national levels limits effective oversight of the LPI industry. For example, regulators lack reliable data that would allow them to evaluate the cost of LPI or the appropriateness of its use. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), which helps coordinate state insurance regulation, requires insurers to annually submit state-level LPI data, but the data were incomplete and unreliable. NAIC provides guidance for the reporting of these data and shares responsibility with state regulators for reviewing and analyzing the data, but neither has developed policies and procedures sufficient for ensuring their reliability. State and federal regulators have coordinated to collect more detailed national data to better understand the LPI industry, but insurers failed to provide them all of the requested information, and whether and when they will is unknown. Without more comprehensive and reliable data, state and federal regulators lack an important tool to fully evaluate LPI premium rates and industry practices and ensure that consumers are adequately protected.
 
Why GAO Did This Study
 
Mortgage servicers use LPI to protect the collateral on mortgages when borrower-purchased homeowners or flood insurance coverage lapses. The 2007-2009 financial crisis resulted in an increased prevalence of LPI. Because LPI premiums are generally higher than those for borrower-purchased coverage, state insurance regulators and consumer groups have raised concerns about costs to consumers.
 
This report addresses (1) the extent to which LPI is used; (2) stakeholder views on the cost of LPI; and (3) state and federal oversight of LPI. GAO examined documentation, studies, and laws and regulations related to LPI, and interviewed stakeholders including state insurance and federal financial regulators, consumer advocates, insurers, servicers, and industry associations. GAO selected interviewees based on their involvement in the LPI market and other factors to obtain a diverse range of perspectives. GAO selected the seven state insurance regulators to interview based on a number of factors including LPI premium volume and involvement in the LPI market.
 
What GAO Recommends
 
GAO recommends that NAIC work with state insurance regulators to collect sufficient, reliable data to oversee the LPI market. This includes working with state insurance regulators to develop and implement more robust policies and procedures for LPI data collected annually from insurers and to complete efforts to obtain more detailed national data from insurers. NAIC said it would consider the recommendations as part of its ongoing work in the area.
 
For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov.

Source: GAO

Additional Resources:

GAO-15-631 Full Report [pdf]

Freddie Mac Updates to State Foreclosure Time Lines

Investor Update
September 3, 2015

As part of our periodic review of State foreclosure time lines, we’ve increased State foreclosure time lines for all foreclosure sales completed on or after August 1, 2015, in 34 of the 55 jurisdictions. You’ll see these changes reflected in your September Compensatory Fee Analysis report. Please review the updated time lines below.
 
We’ve also extended the temporary suspension of State foreclosure time line compensatory fee assessments in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New York (including New York City), and New Jersey from June 30, 2015, to December 31, 2015. The temporary suspension was originally announced in Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide (Guide) Bulletin 2014-19 [pdf].
 
NOTE: The changes discussed in this article will be formally announced in our October 2015 Guide Bulletin, including updates to Guide Exhibit 83, Freddie Mac State Foreclosure Time Lines.

Updated Freddie Mac State Foreclosure Time Lines

The following table shows our prior and updated foreclosure time lines (in calendar days):

State

Foreclosure Time Lines
(effective 11/1/14)

Foreclosure Time Lines
(effective 8/1/15)

Alabama

360

360

Alaska

450

480

Arizona

330

360

Arkansas

450

510

California

510

540

Colorado

420

540

Connecticut

750

810

Delaware

780

960

District of Columbia

300

300

Florida

810

930

Georgia

330

360

Guam

500

500

Hawaii

840

1,080

Idaho

540

570

Illinois

630

690

Indiana

570

570

Iowa

630

630

Kansas

420

480

Kentucky

540

600

Louisiana

510

540

Maine

690

990

Maryland

660

720

Massachusetts

440

440

Michigan

300

330

Minnesota

390

390

Mississippi

360

360

Missouri

330

330

Montana

450

450

Nebraska

420

420

Nevada

690

900

New Hampshire

420

510

New Jersey

750

750

New Mexico

720

930

New York

820

820

New York City

990

990

North Carolina

450

450

North Dakota

630

630

Ohio

570

570

Oklahoma

570

600

Oregon

600

1,080

Pennsylvania

750

810

Puerto Rico

720

810

Rhode Island

660

840

South Carolina

600

600

South Dakota

570

600

Tennessee

300

360

Texas

390

420

Utah

540

540

Vermont

810

900

Virgin Islands

510

510

Virginia

390

390

Washington

660

720

West Virginia

300

390

Wisconsin

510

540

Wyoming

330

360

For More Information

  • Sign up for Single-Family news emails, updates, alerts, and education opportunities on our Subscription Center.
  • Visit Freddie Mac’s Learning Center for information on our training programs and reference tools.
  • Contact your Freddie Mac representative.

Source: Freddie Mac

Freddie Mac Single-Family Update: Available Training on The Learning Center

Investor Update
September 17, 2015

Take part in one of these upcoming training events offered by The Learning Center. Register or log on today!

Freddie Mac Standard Short Sale   available dates
Freddie Mac Standard Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure   available dates
These webinars both provide updated information on Freddie Mac’s requirements for their respective topics. Collectors, customer service representatives and loss-mitigation staff will learn eligibility and documentation requirements, how to evaluate for borrower contribution and relocation assistance, if applicable, as well as closing requirements.

Servicing Technology Tools: Manager Series Reports Tutorial
This tutorial, available 24/7, focuses on the reports in Default Reporting ManagerSM, Timeline ManagerSM and Workout Manager® that you can use to manage your default portfolio. The reports can assist you with enhancing your Servicer Success Scorecard results and helps to minimize compensatory fees.

For additional Servicing learning opportunities and tools, click here.

Visit The Learning Center for all your Single-Family training & education needs.

Source: Freddie Mac

Freddie Mac: Check Out New Helpful Tips on Our Investor Reporting Web Page

Investor Update
September 15, 2015

We’ve updated our Freddie Mac Investor Reporting Web page with a new information spotlight to help you better manage various aspects of investor reporting.
 
What’s New?
 
Did you know that Freddie Mac receives an average of 25,000 system edits a month?  The good news is that you can reduce that number significantly and save yourself the time and trouble of retransmission.
 
Our new September/October spotlight offers you more quick fixes to common edits, including Edits 101, 302, and 314. We’ve also started an archive of previous spotlights.

Reporting Tools
 
As always, the Web page provides you with management tools and training that make it easier than ever for you to improve investor reporting accuracy and keep your Freddie Mac portfolio on track.
 
Bookmark this Web page and make our Investor Reporting tab your one-stop shop for policy updates, links to training and resources, and easy access to technology tools such as the Service Loans applicationServicer Performance Profile, and Remedy ManagerSM.
 
Training
 
Please register for the free webinar training Investor Accounting: Resolving Loan-Level Edits.

For More Information

  • Visit Freddie Mac’s Learning Center for additional information on our training programs and references tools.
  • Stay connected to Investor Reporting Web page updates and the latest Single-Family news. Sign up for the Single-Family Week in Review and receive a summary of the previous week’s Single-Family news and announcements every Monday morning.
  • Contact your Freddie Mac representative.

Source: Freddie Mac

FHLMC Guide Bulletin 2015-15 Increasing Modification Eligibility and More

Investor Update
September 9, 2015

In today’s Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide (Guide) Bulletin 2015-15, we announced updates to borrower eligibility for modifications and requirements related to Freddie Mac Default Legal Matters.

Key highlights include:

  • Updates to the mark-to-market loan-to-value ratio calculation for Freddie Mac Standard and Streamlined Modifications to enable more borrowers to qualify.
  • Expanded eligibility requirements for Streamlined and MyCity Modifications to maximize modification options for severely delinquent borrowers.
  • Greater flexibility for Servicers when handling Freddie Mac Default Legal Matters related to bankruptcy referrals.
  • Updates to Freddie Mac Accounts Receivables email addresses.

Please read Guide Bulletin 2015-15 for more details.

Reminder: Beginning September 1 – as announced in Guide Bulletin 2015-9 [pdf] – all appeals for late foreclosure sale reporting compensatory fees must be submitted through the Freddie Mac Default Fee Appeal System.

For More Information

Source: Freddie Mac

FHLMC Guide Bulletin 2015-14 Prepare Now for New Settlement Automation for Third-Party Foreclosure Sales

Investor Update
September 29, 2015

In Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide (Guide) Bulletin 2015-14, we announced new automated settlement functionality for liquidation transactions in Workout Prospector®, which will now be available on November 16, 2015, and includes short sales, deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure, charge-offs, and third-party foreclosure sales.

To help you plan ahead, we want to ensure that you’re set up to use Workout Prospector for settling third-party sales. While you don’t have to submit third-party sales for settlement through Workout Prospector until March 1, 2016, we strongly encourage you to implement this new process, beginning on November 16.

Sign Up for Access

Please follow these simple steps to hit the ground running on November 16:

NOTE: We’ll notify you in mid-November when this new functionality is available and our training materials and resources, including the Workout Prospector Users’ Guide, are updated.

For More Information

 

Source: Freddie Mac

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