This email was sent to you by:
Anonymous |
|
Mortgage News Daily
|
Message: YOUR MESSAGE HERE |
Email alerts, such as this one, are a
free service provided by Mortgage News Daily. If you would like to receive an alert when
important news breaks please
register to join our community.
The Fatal Flaw in HAMP: Lack of Servicer Oversight
Twenty
months into HAMP, nagging administrative issues are still prevalent and the program seems to have run out of steam. This is evident from the plethora of processing problems we see and
hear on a daily basis. From lost documents, improper calculation of
income, poor knowledge and implementation of underwriting guidelines, long approval times, and more recently the robo-signing scandal. The list goes on
and on...
To
Treasury's credit they have put forth an effort to work out some of these problems. They implemented directive after directive to
deal with the challenges and shortfalls of the original program. But no progress has been made. Servicers say they are doing everything possible to comply, but in the end they claim their operations to not be set up for broad based loss
mitigation programs.
The
troubling part is that
during the foreclosure escalation process, no
one oversees the servicer's actions. When a homeowner is
denied a HAMP modification or the process is taking ten to twenty months to complete, no one is checking on the servicer. No
one requests to see the files to determine if that homeowner does or does not
actually meet the guidelines. Again are we just to believe the servicer performed their underwriting role correctly. Who is monitoring the process to ensure borrowers are not being dragged on for financial
gain?
This lack of oversight is the "Fatal Flaw" in HAMP. How can
Treasury assure American homeowners or the American taxpayer that everything is being done to appropriately address the foreclosure crisis if no one is double checking whether or not each loan modification was underwritten properly? If servicers have willingly taken part in robo-signing, why is anyone to
believe they did not cut corners in the underwriting process? Based on all the
evidence,
this is a forgone conclusion but what is Treasury to do? They can leave it up
to the courts and individual Attorney Generals but it will take years to clear out the backup that is already in place at county courthouses.
Treasury
could implement a component in HAMP that better addresses compliance. This job is contractually the responsibility of Freddie Mac and
requires them to review the servicer operation and procedures to assure that
all applications for HAMP are given the same treatment. This compliance
operation is part of the Participating Servicing Agreement (PSA) that over one
hundred servicers have signed with Treasury. Part of this guideline is the
"Escalation" process where a homeowner that has been denied a modification has
the ability to have their case reviewed by Treasury. Treasury has hired
Homeownership Preservation Foundation (HPF) to handle those calls. According
to Treasury it is the job of HPF to work with the homeowner and servicer to try
and iron out differences, to act as an advocate of the homeowner with the
servicer.
A
strong "Escalation" process performed by a neutral third party can either
affirm or dispute those findings. In a case where the servicer did in fact
make a mistake, a completed modification application, fully underwritten by a HUD
Direct Endorsed Underwriter would be given to the servicer for review and
completion. This escalation process would also give Treasury the information they
need to verify whether or not the servicer had done their job. It would also send a message of accountability to the servicing industry.
Unfortunately at this time,
Treasury has clearly stated it has no intention of performing this function
even though it is mandated by HAMP. Doesn't
it make sense to actually "review" a file for accuracy? Without this,
what recourse is left to the investor and homeowner?
The answer is possibly "the Courts," but that would
only slow the housing recovery process even more. This does not benefit anyone but the
servicer. This "Fatal Flaw" needs to be corrected.
More from MND:
If you would like to opt-out of receiving email forwards from this person please click here to remove your email address.
This email was sent to you by:
|
Mortgage News Daily
|
 |
Anonymous Loan Representative University Mortgage Hackensack NJ 07601 |
(201) 820-4420 |
Message:
YOUR MESSAGE HERE
The Fatal Flaw in HAMP: Lack of Servicer Oversight
Twenty
months into HAMP, nagging administrative issues are still prevalent and the program seems to have run out of steam. This is evident from the plethora of processing problems we see and
hear on a daily basis. From lost documents, improper calculation of
income, poor knowledge and implementation of underwriting guidelines, long approval times, and more recently the robo-signing scandal. The list goes on
and on...
To
Treasury's credit they have put forth an effort to work out some of these problems. They implemented directive after directive to
deal with the challenges and shortfalls of the original program. But no progress has been made. Servicers say they are doing everything possible to comply, but in the end they claim their operations to not be set up for broad based loss
mitigation programs.
The
troubling part is that
during the foreclosure escalation process, no
one oversees the servicer's actions. When a homeowner is
denied a HAMP modification or the process is taking ten to twenty months to complete, no one is checking on the servicer. No
one requests to see the files to determine if that homeowner does or does not
actually meet the guidelines. Again are we just to believe the servicer performed their underwriting role correctly. Who is monitoring the process to ensure borrowers are not being dragged on for financial
gain?
This lack of oversight is the "Fatal Flaw" in HAMP. How can
Treasury assure American homeowners or the American taxpayer that everything is being done to appropriately address the foreclosure crisis if no one is double checking whether or not each loan modification was underwritten properly? If servicers have willingly taken part in robo-signing, why is anyone to
believe they did not cut corners in the underwriting process? Based on all the
evidence,
this is a forgone conclusion but what is Treasury to do? They can leave it up
to the courts and individual Attorney Generals but it will take years to clear out the backup that is already in place at county courthouses.
Treasury
could implement a component in HAMP that better addresses compliance. This job is contractually the responsibility of Freddie Mac and
requires them to review the servicer operation and procedures to assure that
all applications for HAMP are given the same treatment. This compliance
operation is part of the Participating Servicing Agreement (PSA) that over one
hundred servicers have signed with Treasury. Part of this guideline is the
"Escalation" process where a homeowner that has been denied a modification has
the ability to have their case reviewed by Treasury. Treasury has hired
Homeownership Preservation Foundation (HPF) to handle those calls. According
to Treasury it is the job of HPF to work with the homeowner and servicer to try
and iron out differences, to act as an advocate of the homeowner with the
servicer.
A
strong "Escalation" process performed by a neutral third party can either
affirm or dispute those findings. In a case where the servicer did in fact
make a mistake, a completed modification application, fully underwritten by a HUD
Direct Endorsed Underwriter would be given to the servicer for review and
completion. This escalation process would also give Treasury the information they
need to verify whether or not the servicer had done their job. It would also send a message of accountability to the servicing industry.
Unfortunately at this time,
Treasury has clearly stated it has no intention of performing this function
even though it is mandated by HAMP. Doesn't
it make sense to actually "review" a file for accuracy? Without this,
what recourse is left to the investor and homeowner?
The answer is possibly "the Courts," but that would
only slow the housing recovery process even more. This does not benefit anyone but the
servicer. This "Fatal Flaw" needs to be corrected.
If you would like to opt-out of receiving email forwards from this person please click here to remove your email address.