Entries Tagged as 'Industry Involvement'

MBA Chairman-Elect Testifies on RESPA Reform

The Chairman-Elect of the Mortgage Bankers Association, David G. Kittle, testified yesterday on RESPA Reform before the House Financial Services Committee.

The hearing was entitled “HUD’s Proposed Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Reform.”  Mr. Kittle reiterated MBA’s general support for RESPA reform, but encouraged the Department of Housing and Urban Development to work closely with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to truly improve consumer disclosures that would allow borrowers to better shop and understand their loan.  Mr. Kittle noted a number of weaknesses in the proposed rule by the HUD.

In his prepared remarks, Mr. Kittle highlighted the following:

  • MBA and he have long been committed to improving the mortgage process for both industry and consumers.
  • Reforms should give consumers the information they need to effectively shop for loans, inform themselves about the true cost of closing on a mortgage and protect themselves from unscrupulous actors .  These needs require a comprehensive approach to the loan application and closing process, involving both HUD’s RESPA forms and the Truth in Lending Act forms from the Federal Reserve.
  • HUD’s proposed RESPA reforms do not even come close to achieving simplification.  Accordingly, HUD’s final rule should be delayed and officials at HUD should work with the Federal Reserve on a joint and comprehensive effort to simplify and improve forms and disclosures.

Mr. Kittle further detailed a number of problems with the proposed HUD rule, including that HUD:

  1. took what should be a one page form and made it four pages;
  2. would require a 45 minute script be read to the consumer, stretching an already long closing process, with no benefit to the borrower; and
  3. continues to have a series of forms where lines don’t match and consumers cannot discern what happens from one part of the process to the next.

For a copy of Mr. Kittle’s prepared comments, please click here.

MBA Regulatory Compliance Conference

Mortgage Law Blog reminds readers that the Mortgage Bankers Association will hold its annual Regulatory Compliance Conference September 14 - 16, 2008. 

The conference will be held at the JW Marriott in Washington, DC.

The MBA’s website describes the conference as the “the premier forum for you to attain the most comprehensive, up-to-date information on significant regulatory and compliance issues facing the mortgage banking industry at the federal and state levels.”

The conference includes “an in-depth discussion of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the most sweeping real estate finance and housing legislation in a generation. Attendees of this conference learn about the contents of this law, how its provisions will be implemented and what changes your business needs to make to comply with the new regulations.”

Speakers will cover a variety of topics, including:

  • Home Owners Equity Protection Act/Truth in lending Act
  • Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
  • Anti-predatory lending requirements
  • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act/Fair lending
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act/Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
  • Federal Housing Administration loans
  • Mortgage fraud against lenders
  • Servicing
  • Secondary market issues

There will also be legislative and litigation updates. 

The final day will include a visit to Capitol Hill to meet with legislators.

To learn more, visit the conference website here.

Meet MBA Future Leader - Lou Pizante

Lou PizanteMortgage Law Blog recently had a chance to catch up with the CEO of Mavent, Inc., a 2007 Future Leader of the Mortgage Bankers Association

That dialog appears below.

Background

 

Tell us about Mavent, Inc. 

 

Mavent provides automated consumer protection regulatory audits and compliance-related consulting services. Mavent is best known for its automated compliance engine, which analyzes electronic loan data to determine whether a loan complies with over 300 federal and state consumer protection laws related to mortgage lending. Mavent’s compliance rules are maintained by its in-house attorneys in coordination with-and subject to ultimate approval by-its network of nationally recognized law firms.  Mavent has performed over 25 million compliance reviews. Our clients include five of the ten largest lenders and seven of the top ten investors.

 

Describe your role at Mavent.

 

I’m Mavent’s Chief Executive Officer.  As such, I’m responsible for providing direction and leadership toward the achievement of the organization’s culture, mission and strategy.  Our culture centers on an almost evangelistic determination to protect our clients’ business, provide service excellence and foster breakthrough thinking.  Our mission is to harmonize our clients’ consumer protection and business goals by providing a high-ROI means for ensuring all loans our clients fund or purchase comply with applicable law. Our strategic direction is guided by our understanding of the relationships of technology to law, law to business and business to the customer.

 

Describe your background, and how you got into the industry.

 

I hold a dual degree in law and business from New York University.  Following law and business school, I worked on Wall Street for Goldman Sachs, Nomura and Greenwich Capital, mostly in real estate structured products.  At Greenwich I worked for Paul Nidenberg, who became a mentor and close friend. Paul is now Mavent’s CFO.  It was through Paul that I was introduced to Mavent.  I was fascinated by what Mavent was attempting to accomplish—namely, to make it technologically possible and economically preferable to review every loan in a pipeline or pool for compliance with applicable law prior to funding or purchase.  I joined Mavent working in sales and was promoted to CEO in 2006.

 

Describe the various departments of Mavent and a few of the persons in key roles.

 

I am fortunate to lead some of the most intelligent and driven individuals with which I’ve ever worked.

 

Our Legal Team is lead by Angela Cheek, SVP, Senior Legal Counsel.  Her attorneys work together with a group of nationally-recognized consumer credit law firms to monitor, interpret and implement regulatory changes within the system.  I consider one point of differentiation from our competitors is our obsession with accuracy.  Each rule in the Mavent system is formally documented in plain English and formally signed off on by a Mavent attorney and an outside attorney.  Mavent attorneys are also responsible for authoring, implementing and quality checking rules, with appropriate check and balances of course.  Our approach to rule development ensures that all reviews are well-reasoned and firing accurately within the system.  Employing such highly skilled individuals along the rules maintenance value chain involves significant costs.  But, it is the cost of quality. 

 

Lauren Ingersoll, another of our attorneys, heads our Client Training & Support Department.  I said that Mavent has an almost evangelic focus on our clients.  Compliance professionals must safeguard their institutions without impeding production.  No automated compliance engine, no matter how sophisticated, can alone support an efficient mortgage enterprise.  Ultimately, automating compliance requires the interaction of skilled professional to ensure that regulatory interpretations and loan review results are properly understood.  For this reason, we believe that quality and value are largely determined by the team supporting the client. 

 

Scott McNulla leads our Professional Services team which handles our client and partner integrations.  Most of our loan reviews are performed in real-time via an interface with our client loan origination or other production systems.  This enables us to better tailor the compliance review based on a client’s license or charter, regulatory elections, unique regulatory interpretations and internal compliance policies.  Scott also oversees our Data Services team which maintains our proprietary nationwide broker and lender licensing database, as well as tracks the more than 90 indices required for our compliance reviews.

 

Ryder Smith provides leadership to Mavent’s technology operations team, which is responsible for keeping Mavent’s production environments up and running, as well as for ensuring Mavent personnel have the technology tools required to properly service our clients.  Joe Chang is responsible for all aspects of Mavent’s product development, including strategy, requirements gathering, release planning and product roadmap management.  Jason Connolly, who heads our sales and marketing function, has primary responsibility over prospective client and strategic partner development and service.

 

Describe the three things that your company does best.

 

We’re fixated on client satisfaction.  We’re very focused on arranging all the elements of our service — functionality, delivery, support — so that they collectively generate an exceptional client experience.

 

By functionality I’m referring to our approach to product development.  Our clients define for us what is important.  This means we have to stay on top of our clients needs.  You have to understand changes in the marketplace and regulatory landscape.  You need to track new legislation and how examiners are interpreting regulations.  You need to understand how the business is evolving and how product menus are changing.  And, given all this, you need to keep asking what enhancements to our service would be useful to our clients. 

 

By delivery, I mean how the compliance engine is deployed.  Mavent reviews are performed in real time via an interactive integration with the lender’s LOS.  Mavent reviews are automatically triggered by client-defined status changes to the loan file (e.g. submission to underwriting, drawing documents, funding, etc.).  If no exceptions are found, the end-user never needs to know the review has been processed.  If exceptions are found, stops can be put in place to prevent funding non-compliant loans until the user takes corrective action. 

 

We’ve performed more than 25 million compliance reviews for some of the industry’s largest lenders and investors.  Our professional services team is unrivaled in its experience implementing compliance engines across every institution type and business channel imaginable.  The key is to deliver this knowledge and experience to our clients so that, based on their unique needs, we’re able to deliver a high-quality, value-driven service.  No two institutions have deployed Mavent in the same way, and most of our clients have multiple deployments tailored to each business channel.  The single commonality is that all Mavent deployments support, complement, and leverage our clients’ internal compliance resources without unnecessarily burdening production.  We want our clients to take comfort in the millions of loans we’ve reviewed, but at the same time, feel that the service we provide is unique, and not mass produced. 

 

The final element to our service is support.  Our client support team excels at listening to our clients.  They alert our clients to coming regulatory changes, describe how the engine addresses various compliance requirements and explain loan review results.  They cull data that enables our clients to identify issues and measure the kinds of performance that creates, or impairs, value.  As excellent as our automated compliance engines are, we recognize that it is our client support team that ultimately creates value since they are the ones who determine the kinds of experiences Mavent generates for its clients.

 

Our competitors compete mainly on price.  We understand that many lenders will buy on price alone.  Not all lenders are able to appreciate our approach or value.  As far as we’re concerned, the most successful institutions over the long run are those that are most capable of measuring value.  Anyone can build an automated compliance engine that is right most of the time, but few companies can excel at really creating value for their clients.  We meet our clients’ needs faster and better than our competitors, and we attribute this to why we are so dominant among the industry leaders.

 

Describe the types of companies that are best fits for Mavent.

 

Mavent’s automated compliance engines and other services were developed to service the needs of large, sophisticated lenders operating on a multi-jurisdictional basis with a full range of mortgage products across multiple production channels. 

 

However, over the past year we have enhanced our products to provide cost-effective service to medium and small-sized lenders.  We are seeking to “democratize” compliance by providing these lenders access to the same high quality automated compliance reviews previously available only to the industry’s largest players.  The benefits are two-fold.  First, because the investors that use Mavent have considerable share of the loan purchase market, small- and mid-sized lenders can now leverage Mavent to reduce costly loan repurchases and realize better secondary market executions.  Second, Mavent enables small- and mid-sized lenders to reduce their regulatory risk exposure.  This is critical to ensuring the continued strength of the mortgage industry and real estate capital markets, expanding homeownership, and generally protecting all stakeholders from the irresponsible actions of bad actors.

 

If readers wanted to learn more about Mavent, what would be the best way?

 

The best way to learn more about Mavent is to first check out our website at www.mavent.com.  We also encourage you to give us a call at 949.474.4700.

 

 

Bird’s Eye View of the Industry.

What effect have the changing market conditions had on your work over the last three years?

 

Consumer protection regulation is undergoing an unprecedented transformation, marked by an accelerating pace and growing complexity in the law.  Consider that during the savings-and-loan crisis HOEPA was not yet enacted, nor were there any high cost laws.  Available technology was much less sophisticated and the mortgage industry, relative to other industries, was behind the adoption curve.  The past three years, however, have brought a growing patchwork of federal, state and local legislation and regulation subject to varying and—frequently—inconsistent interpretations among regulatory agencies, courts and investors.  This notwithstanding, record volumes and profits bred a sort of risk management arrogance.

 

But over the past year, the pressure on mortgage institutions, lawmakers and regulators to protect borrowers’ interests has grown as a result of media coverage, election year campaigning, and homeowner concerns about home values and financing options.  Attorneys general and the plaintiffs’ bar are leading a rigorous and intense inquiry into the industry’s poor performance over the past several years in complying with consumer protection laws. 

 

The risk management arrogance simply won’t fly anymore.  There is now a zero-tolerance attitude towards regulatory and other risks.  Mavent enables its clients to review all loans pre-funding or pre-purchase for compliance with these laws in a matter of seconds and at a very low cost.  For our clients, this reduces the costs of borrower, refunds, fines, penalties, civil actions, investor put backs and other commercial contract disputes.  

 

What changes do you anticipate going forward?

 

All we’ve really seen thus far is fallout from credit losses.  We have yet to see the fallout from related consumer protection violations.  This will come significantly in the form of civil litigation and regulatory enforcement actions. 

 

Bear in mind that both credit underwriting and consumer protection regulation consider whether the terms of a financing are such that a borrower can be reasonably expected to meet its obligations.  Consumer protection regulation, however, goes further in that it also takes into account a transaction’s fairness and appropriateness.  Given that credit decisions are profit motivated, it’s naïve to assume that the industry as a whole, did a better in job protecting borrowers than it did in protecting itself.

 

There is plenty of evidence supporting that it did not.  For instance, in September 2006 the FDIC’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report regarding member bank compliance with 8 federal consumer protection laws during the 2005 audit cycle.  83% of the institutions examined were cited for significant compliance violations.  43% of those institutions were repeat offenders. 85% of those repeat offenders were highly rated by the FDIC for their in-place compliance processes. 

 

Why, then, has the consumer protection issue not become more pronounced? 

 

During the past several years, the industry’s rate of non-compliance went largely unnoticed because all interested parties were largely satisfied.  Borrowers had access to cheap financing, lenders sold loans profitably into the secondary market, issuers were profiting off mortgage-laced structured financial products, and securities investors were earning ample yield on ostensibly investment grade securities.  Regulators, meanwhile, lacked the resources or clout to sufficiently supervise mortgage institutions, as the FDIC study illustrates.  Consequently, the industry and the public were lulled into a false sense of security. 

 

But, not surprisingly, defaults change everything.   It is the current credit crisis, and consequent record foreclosure rates, that is now revealing a multi-year stretch of systemic consumer protection violations. 

 

This is apparent from the significant rise in mortgage-related litigation.  Navigant Consulting, Inc., a consulting firm, recently released a report that showed the number of mortgage-related cases filed in federal courts have surged in the first quarter of 2008, dramatically outpacing 2007 filings.  The total filings are close to surpassing the savings-and-loan crisis litigation of the early 1990s.  According to the Navigant Consulting report, the number of mortgage-related cases exploded in the first quarter of 2008, increasing 85 percent over the next busiest quarter.  A staggering 170 cases were filed during the quarter.  Borrower class actions were the largest category of cases filed.

 

Similar to the crisis that led up to Sarbanes-Oxley, this is going to be a painful process marred by more executive firings, possible criminal charges and loss of franchise value for some of the financial services industry’s most consumer-oriented brands.  

 

What are the biggest concerns your customers have?

 

Our clients are most concerned with protecting their brands, which ultimately means protecting their clients. Most of our clients are large, diversified institutions with consumer-oriented brands.  The intangible costs of consumer protection violations—by this I mean the “headline risk”—is of major concern.

 

The biggest near-term concern our clients and prospective clients have is how to manage compliance risk while budgets are shrinking.  The industry is in survival mode and is concerned foremost with cutting costs.  Consequently, compliance resources are being scaled back, just as compliance risk is growing. 

 

The mortgage industry is predicated on smartly bearing risk.  But, a financial cost/benefit analysis lacks appropriateness when it comes to complying with consumer protection laws.  Unlike credit or collateral decisions, compliance is rooted in laws designed to ensure social equity.  This makes a purely economic approach to tolerating compliance risk unacceptable and profoundly corrosive of the industry. 

 

This notwithstanding, it is debatable whether the costs of non-compliance are properly understood.  Like many of the mortgage “quant” models that have turned out wrong, expected losses from regulatory violations are based on skewed data and rickety assumptions.  There is no historical precedent for the past three years.  Never before has the industry transacted so widely across the credit spectrum and with such explosive growth in its product menu.  There have never been more federal and state laws to trip over.  We are in what statisticians call a “fat tail” – a term that describes extreme events that occur more frequently than theory predicts. 

 

Clearly smart decisions have to be made about how to maximize dollars spent, and even then it is impossible to bullet-proof an institution.   But, public records—and our own experience—reveal that a large number of institutions are taking on a reckless amount of risk.  One of the things we do for our clients is perform assessments of their compliance risk management practices (or those of their counterparties), as well as assist them in formulating cost/benefit analysis.  

Future Leader’s Program.

 

You were named a Future Leader in 2007 by the National MBA.  Describe that experience.

 

Exhilarating.  Exhausting.  I guess it was exhilar-austing.

 

What benefits did the experience bring? 

 

The experience afforded me the occasion to meet and work with some of the industry’s brightest and most experienced individuals, gain an appreciation for the scenic and culturally rich island of Puerto Rico, and represent our industry in contributing to the growth and sustainability of the Puerto Rican community.

 

What were the downsides? 

 

The downside is that the class divided into teams.  Consequently, I did not have the opportunity to work closely with many of the outstanding individuals in the program.

 

Looking back, anything you would change? 

 

I probably wouldn’t have had that last mojito the night before our first all-day session.  But, field work is important.

 

To whom would you recommend the program?

 

Those interested in building a long-term career in this industry should become involved with the Mortgage Bankers Association.  Those with a particular taste for suffering should become Future Leaders. 

 

Anyone to whom you would not recommend the program?

 

The program involves an enormous amount of effort and requires individuals to work well in teams.  I would not recommend it to those without the time, dedication or interpersonal skills.

Frank Says FHA’s Position on Caps Illogical

Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, Barney Frank (D-MA), has sent a letter to the Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Following the greeting, the Chairman’s letter states:

I am writing in the hopes that you can reconcile for me two recent statements by you that are very much in conflict with each other.  In your recent speech, you stressed that you wish to run the FHA according to sound business principles.  But you have also announced that you do not wish to be able to guarantee mortgages – including those that are indisputably credit worthy – for homes over $550,000 in value.  The statement that I read that was attributed to you is that since these homes above that number do not represent a very large percentage of your business, there is no need for you to insure them.

I find it hard to think of an argument that could be more at variance with your professed dedication to sound business principles.  Can you cite me other examples of enterprises run along business principles that repudiate the desire of some customers to deal with them simply because those customers are at too high an economic level?  If servicing people at the level above $550,000 detracted from your ability to service others, I would share your objection to your being allowed to do the higher end, although it would hardly be based on business principles.  That is, a business – which is again the way you say you want to run the FHA – would presumably be willing to sacrifice lower end customers for higher end ones if there were a greater profit in servicing the higher end customers, and a choice had to be made. 

But in this case, not only does no choice have to made, according to the Congressional Budget Office, servicing people at the higher end provides increased revenue that you can then use to enhance your ability to operate.

So I repeat my request that you explain to me what sound business principle leads you to proclaim that you do not wish to be able to service people who are seeking mortgages above $550,000, despite the fact that you could do this in a way that enhances your overall mission, and in fact is profitable in this regard.

It seems that the Chairman and the FHA Commissioner may be talking past each other.  It will be fascinating to see the reply.

For a full copy of the letter and the Committee’s summary, please click here.

Stay tuned . . .

HUD Requests Comments on Proposed Rule for Late Endorsements

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued a proposed rule regarding acceptable payment histories for late requests for endorsement for FHA insurance. 

HUD seeks public comment on the proposal.

HUD’s summary of the proposal states:

HUD’s current regulations require that a mortgage show an acceptable payment history when submitted for late endorsement, but they are silent as to what constitutes an acceptable payment history.  This proposed rule would provide factors that establish an acceptable payment history when a mortgage is submitted for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance more than 60 days after closing, and would make one technical amendment pertaining to the submission of documentation for endorsement.

For a copy of the proposal, click here.

Comments are due August 8, 2008.

FDIC Sponsors Low to Moderate Income Mortgage Forum

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will hold a forum on mortgage lending for low- and moderate-income households on July 8, 2008.

The announcement indicates the purpose of the LMI Mortgage Forum is to explore a framework for LMI mortgage lending in the future, including identifying market and regulatory incentives for encouraging responsible LMI mortgage lending.

Speakers and participants will come from the banking, investing, government, academic and nonprofit communities.  Speakers will include (among others):

The Forum will cover such topics as:

  • Back to Basics, Reintroducing Standard Underwriting Criteria and Pricing to the LMI Mortgage Market
  • Reasonable, Profitable and Innovative Approaches to LMI Mortgage Lending
  • Building Relationships, Building Communities: Partnerships that Foster Home Ownership

For a full copy of the announcement, please click here.

President to Congress - Extend Tax Cuts to Avoid Huge Increase

The White House has issued a Fact Sheet warning lawmakers and the public that the “Biggest Tax Increase in History” is looming, and cajoling Congress to make soon-to-expire tax cuts permanent.

The Fact sheet states that Americans would have paid $1.3 trillion more in taxes through last year absent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. 

The Fact Sheet goes on to state:

If the President’s tax relief is allowed to expire at the end of 2010, Americans will pay about $280 billion more in taxes each year.  With the largest tax increase in history looming, Congress should make the President’s tax relief permanent. 

The numbers presented in the Fact Sheet presumably are large enough to make people take notice if they are listening. 

For example, the Fact Sheet states:

A single parent with two children earning $30,000 would see an increase of over $1,600 in taxes.

A family of four earning $40,000 would see an increase of over $2,300 in taxes.

A family of four earning $50,000 would see an increase of over $2,100 in taxes – an increase 191 percent.

A family of four earning $60,000 would see a tax increase of approximately $1,901 in taxes – an increase of 70 percent.

A family of four earning $80,000 would see a tax increase of about $2,000 in taxes.

For a full copy of the Fact Sheet, click here.

MBA Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference

Mortgage Law Blog reminds readers that the Mortgage Bankers Association’s Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference is April 28 to May 1.

The conference, held this year in Carlsbad California, is one of the premier events for lawyers in the mortgage banking industry.

The MBA describes the conference as follows:

This year has brought an unparalleled array of new legislative, regulatory and litigation developments to the mortgage industry.  MBA’s Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference 2008 at La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, Calif., will provide you with an in-depth understanding of all that is new and all that is anticipated so that you can meet the legal and regulatory challenges of today and tomorrow.

No other conference offers the mortgage industry as comprehensive a legal and regulatory program. At this conference — designed for managers, industry lawyers and compliance officers — industry experts present conference participants with the entire complement of legal and regulatory developments facing the industry, including:  

  • New Federal Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation 
  • New Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) Regulations
  • New RESPA and TILA Reform Proposals
  • New State Laws
  • New Servicing and Loss Mitigation Standards
  • New Litigation Cases and Class Actions
  • New Secondary Market - GSE and Investor Requirements
  • New Initiatives to Protect Lenders Against Mortgage Fraud
  • New HMDA and Fair Lending Developments
  • New Data Security, ID Theft and Privacy Initiatives
  • New FCRA and FACTA Developments
  • New FLSA/Employment Law Cases
  • New Risk Mitigation Strategies
  • Legal Ethics
  • New issues in the legal, regulatory and compliance spheres
  • The conference is packed with excellent speakers and attendees from industry and government, including from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, state Attorneys General offices, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, numerous mortgage banking companies and others. 

    For more information about the conference, please click here.

    Mortgage Law Blog will not post during this period due to the Editor’s attendance at the conference.

    RESPA Reform - Congress Wants More Time

    RESPA News (paid subscription required) reports that representatives Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) have sent a letter to Roy Bernardi, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, requesting that HUD give the public 60 more days to comment on HUD’s proposed RESPA Reform rules.

    According to the article, the letter states that: 

    given the significance of this law and its regulations, any changes should be thoroughly vetted, especially at this time when our economy is in such a fragile state.  We need to ensure that any HUD updates to RESPA regulations do not negatively impact the home buying process and exacerbate the current economic slowdown.

    A number of organizations have already requested additional time, but the article notes that Ivy Jackson, Director of HUD’s Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales, already has informally indicated that no extension of time is appropriate.

    Mortgage Law Blog readers may recall that Reps. Biggert and Hinojosa were also active on this issue in 2004.  At that time, they initiated a letter writing campaign that helped block the RESPA Reform proposal then on the table.

    Will this Reform proposal stay on track?  Stay tuned . . .

    CSBS on Foreclosure Relief - Insufficient

    The Conference of State Banking Supervisors issued a press release stating that industry attempts to prevent foreclosures are insufficient.

    The release stems from the second report entitled “Analysis of Subprime Mortgage Servicing Performance” issued by the State Foreclosure Prevention Working Group (led by 11 states attorneys general and banking regulators, and the CSBS).  The report includes data from subprime servicers for the period from October 2007 to January 2008.  A prior report was issued February 7, 2008. 

    The report acknowledged that the number of homeowners receiving loss mitigation help has increased.  But so have the number of homeowners delinquent on payments.  Private initiatives are “barely keeping pace” CSBS noted.

    CSBS notes the following major findings from the report:

    Seven out of ten seriously delinquent borrowers are still not on track for any loss-mitigation outcome.  The number of borrowers in loss mitigation has increased, but it has been matched by an increasing level of delinquent loans; thus, the relative percentage has remained about the same.  Given creative servicer outreach efforts and increased public awareness of the HOPE Hotline during Oct.-Jan., this large gap suggests a more systemic failure of servicer capacity to work out loans.  

    Data suggests that servicers’ loss-mitigation departments are severely strained in managing the current workload.   The report noted that almost two-thirds of all loss-mitigation efforts started are not completed in the following month.  We are concerned that servicers overall are not able to manage the sheer numbers of delinquent loans.  Data suggests that the burgeoning numbers of delinquent loans that do not receive loss-mitigation attention are clogging up the system on their way to foreclosure.  We fear this will translate to increased levels of vacant foreclosed homes that will further depress property values and increase burdens on government services.

    Homeowners who do receive loss-mitigation help are most likely to receive some form of loan modification.  The Group said such modifications are a solution that seems to offer better long-term prospects for successful resolution of problem loans.  Many servicers are replacing their use of repayment plans in favor of loan modifications.

    To solve the perceived problems, the report suggests that industry and state officials work on:

    Developing a more systematic loan work-out system to replace the intensive, individual, “hands-on” loss-mitigation approach.  Initial efforts to develop systemic approaches are far too limited to make a difference in preventable foreclosures.  Without a systematic approach, we see little likelihood that ongoing efforts will make a serious dent in the level of unnecessary foreclosures.  The Group will continue to work with servicers to promote systematic solutions to modify loans in a more streamlined and efficient manner.

    Slowing down the foreclosure process to allow for more work-outs.  Targeted efforts to slow down subprime foreclosures may give homeowners and servicers more time to find solutions to avoid foreclosure.  Many states have enacted or are considering such measures, the report noted.

    Mortgage Law Blog notes that “barely keeping pace” is still keeping pace.  This would seem to be an accomplishment if the numbers of delinquent borrowers continue to surge as the report suggests.  This is not to suggest that industry sit on its hands, but the industry’s side of the story continues to be lost in the maelstrom.

    The Ohio AG, among others, will speak at the Mortgage Bankers’ Association’s Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference next week.  It will be interesting to hear the views presented.

    For a copy of the CSBS press release, click here.

    For a copy of the State Working Group’s reports, click here.