This post was co-written by Andrew Jakabovics, Associate Director for for Housing and Economics at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Pat Garofalo.
Seemingly deliberate noncompliance with the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) may explain why Bank of America has consistently lagged behind the other large servicers in the share of delinquent loans that have been modified under the program. Ever since the Treasury Department began releasing data on the performance of servicers participating in HAMP, Bank of America has always been dead last of the four large servicers.
BofA has been participating in HAMP since its inception in mid-April. As of the end of October, it had active trial modifications on 14 percent of its estimated 991,000 eligible mortgages. This rate is less than half that of Wells Fargo (29 percent), which is third among the big servicers. Even US Bank, which has a much smaller portfolio but only signed up for the program on September 9, has been able to get 15 percent of its borrowers into trial modifications.
The reported percentage of modifications for each servicer is calculated based on the number of active modifications divided by the number of loans that are at least 60 days late and otherwise meet eligibility criteria. But as this recent letter demonstrates (which is available here, courtesy of the Coalition for Mortgage Industry Solutions), BofA is actively soliciting borrowers to participate in its own private mortgage modification program, without first verifying whether or not the borrower is eligible for HAMP. (In the full document, the borrower’s personal information has been blacked out.)
The letter clearly indicates that BofA has no idea whether or not the borrower qualifies for HAMP, yet they are still offering an alternative program. This diversion is an apparent violation of the contract signed with Treasury. The Servicer Participation Agreement stipulates:
Servicer shall perform the Services for all mortgage loans it services, whether it services such mortgage loans for its own account or for the account of another party, including any holders of mortgage-backed securities (each such other party, an “Investor”).
The “Services” referred to in this section are elsewhere in the contract defined as “All services required to be performed by a participating servicer…including, but not limited to, obligations relating to the modification of first lien mortgage loans and the provision of loan modification and foreclosure prevention services relating thereto.”
The program guidelines released in March by Treasury quite plainly state that “participating servicers are required to consider all eligible loans under the program guidelines unless prohibited by the rules of the applicable PSA and/or other investor servicing agreements. Participating servicers are required to use reasonable efforts to remove any prohibitions and obtain waivers or approvals from all necessary parties.”
In case there remains any ambiguity as to whether a servicer can pull borrowers out of the pool to offer them a non-HAMP-compliant modification before determining their status under HAMP, Treasury official Herbert Allison recently testified, “under HAMP’s loan modification guidelines, mortgage servicers are prevented from ‘cherry-picking’ which loans to modify in a manner that might deny assistance to borrowers at greatest risk of foreclosure.”
So BofA can’t simply suggest an alternative program to this homeowner without determining eligibility for HAMP, and by doing so, it is potentially lowering the number of successful HAMP modifications it completes. Given the size of BofA’s portfolio, its compliance with program rules — particularly as it pertains to getting eligible borrowers into the program — directly impacts the public’s perception of the success of HAMP. If BofA were performing as well as CitiMortgage, Treasury would have reported an additional quarter million mortgages in its HAMP totals.
Diverting eligible borrowers from HAMP threatens to undermine support for the program. Treasury should not allow any contractual breaches to continue.