Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT 

THROUGH THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2015
More than 2.3 Million Homeowner Assistance Actions have taken place under 

Making Home Affordable (MHA) programs

2

MHA AT-A-GLANCE

1MP

Q1: 49K

PTD: 1.8M

See Page 4

FIRST QUARTER 2015 SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS

2MP

Q1: 2K

 PTD: 147K

See Page 12

HAFA

Q1: 16K

PTD: 357K

See Page 13

UP

 Q1: .8K

PTD: 43K

See Page 13

SERVICER

MINOR 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

MODERATE 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

SUBSTANTIAL 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

Bank of America, N.A. 

CitiMortgage, Inc. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

QUARTERLY PROGRAM VOLUMES FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2015

(Months of January, February and March)

See page 16 for additional information and detailed results for this quarter.

Through March 2015, participating servicers have referred nearly 233,000 homeowners to free financial 

counseling. Post modification counseling is designed to help the homeowner stay current in the modification by 

addressing the homeowner’s current overall financial situation, including the financial hardship that caused the 

homeowner to default on his or her original mortgage loan. 

See page 11 for more information.
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Note: For more information and quarterly updates about the Hardest Hit Fund, please visit the website for the Hardest Hit 

Fund or the TARP Monthly Report to Congress. For information and quarterly updates about efforts taken by the 

Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) beyond their participation in MHA which is not reflected in this report please 

visit the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report. For information on efforts undertaken by the 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) please visit its website.

3

Table of Contents

MHA PROGRAM UPDATES 4

HAMP PROGRAM RESULTS:

HAMP Summary 5

HAMP Modification Characteristics 6

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 7

Performance of Permanent HAMP Tier 1 Modifications 8

Homeowners with Disqualified Modifications 9

MHA Borrower Outreach and Intake Project 10

Post Modification Counseling 11

OTHER MHA PROGRAMS:

Principal Reduction Alternative / 2MP Program 12

HAFA Program / Unemployment Program 13

RESULTS BY SERVICER:

MHA Program Activity by Servicer and Investor 14

Servicer Assessment Results 15-21

APPENDIX:

Program and Servicer Assessment Notes A-1

Terms and Methodologies A-2

End Notes A-3

HAMP Activity by State A-4

HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State A-5

HAMP Tier 1 Performance Data by Vintage A-6

HAMP Activity by MSA A-7
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

The following table shows the program-to-date as well as this quarter’s activity for the various MHA programs 

Program-to-Date Q1 2015 QoQ % Change

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started 1,804,468 48,896 -19%

HAMP Tier 1 1,378,855 15,387 -14%

HAMP Tier 2 98,702 13,714 -1%

GSE Standard Modifications (SAI) 248,794 12,526 -3%

Treasury FHA and RD HAMP 78,117 7,269 -53%

2MP Modifications Started 146,925 2,251 -24%

HAFA Transactions Completed 357,388 16,234 -9%

UP Forbearance Plans Started 42,971 829 24%

Cumulative Activity 2,351,752 68,210 -17%

MHA Program Updates

4

*Derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association Quarterly National Delinquency Survey

• Beginning in February of 2015, homeowners became eligible to receive $10,000 in relocation assistance 

when they complete a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure through Treasury’s Home Affordable 

Foreclosure Alternatives® (HAFA) Program. 

• For the first quarter of 2015, servicers either sustained or slightly increased performance from the prior 

quarter, with one servicer moving from the “moderate improvement” category into “minor improvement” 

category. One servicer earned three stars - the highest rating- for each metric category, but was rated as 

needing “moderate improvement” due to lack of progress in implementing previously reported 

improvements identified through regularly scheduled compliance reviews. This quarter’s results indicate that 

some servicers need to continue to focus on income calculation accuracy as well as on appropriate 

communication with potentially eligible MHA borrowers, as identified in the “second look disagree” testing.

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015

Delinquent Loans

(Millions)

Permanent Modifications

(Thousands)

Quarterly Trending of MHA Permanent Modifications Started 

& Estimated Number of Loans 60+ Days Delinquent*

HAMP TIER 1 NON-GSE HAMP TIER 1 GSE HAMP TIER 2 GSE SAI FHA/RD-HAMP 60+ Days DLQ
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

HAMP Summary

Trial

Modifications

All Trials Started1 2,312,068

 Tier 1 2,184,970

 Tier 2 127,098

Active Trials 42,629

Trial Modifications Cancelled Since Verified Income Requirement* 93,640

Permanent 

Modifications

All Permanent Modifications Started 1,477,557

Permanent Modifications Disqualified (Cumulative)** 455,964

Active Permanent Modifications 974,249

5

* When Treasury launched HAMP in the spring of 2009, the housing crisis was severe. The number of homeowners already in default was 

high and servicers had not yet built systems to fully implement a national mortgage modification program. In an effort to provide 

assistance to struggling homeowners as soon as possible, servicers were not required to verify a homeowner’s income prior to 

commencing a trial modification. This resulted in many trials being cancelled if the homeowner could not ultimately provide the

requisite documentation. Beginning in June 2010, servicers were required to verify a homeowner’s income prior to offering trial 

modifications, which substantially reduced the number of trial cancellations. Prior to that date, 698,242 trials were cancelled, for a 

cumulative 791,882 trials cancelled program-to-date. 

** Does not include 47,088 loans paid off and 256 loans withdrawn.

While not all homeowners qualify for HAMP, many have found alternative solutions to their delinquency. For homeowners 

who were not approved for a HAMP trial modification, or for those whose HAMP trial modifications were cancelled:

• 58% received an alternative modification or resolved their delinquency.

• 22% were referred to foreclosure.

Outcome for Homeowners Who Do Not Receive a HAMP Modification

5%

2%

33%

25%

13%

4%

18%

Status of Homeowners Not Accepted for a HAMP Trial Modification or 

Those Whose HAMP Trial Modification was Cancelled

Action Pending

Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 

Borrower Current / Loan Payoff

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure Starts

Foreclosure Completions

Source: Survey data from large servicers2
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Select HAMP Modification Characteristics 

6

Aggregate payment savings to homeowners who received HAMP first lien permanent modifications are estimated 

at approximately $34.8 billion, program-to-date, compared with unmodified mortgage obligations. 

HAMP modifications follow a series of waterfall steps that include capitalization, interest rate adjustment, term 

extension, and principal forbearance/forgiveness.

HAMP has two evaluation tiers:

• Under HAMP Tier 1, servicers apply the modification steps in sequence until the homeowner’s postmodification front-end debt-to-income (DTI) ratio is 31%. The impact of each modification step can vary to 

achieve the target of 31%. 

• Under HAMP Tier 2, servicers apply the modification steps simultaneously to achieve a post-modification DTI 

that falls within an allowable range (subject to investor restrictions). HAMP Tier 2 applies to non-GSE 

mortgages only.

Select Median Permanent Modification Characteristics 

Loan 

Characteristic

Before 

Modification

After 

Modification

Median 

Decrease

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 43.9% 31.0% -13.5 pct pts

 Tier 2 28.0% 21.0% -6.4 pct pts

 All 43.3% 31.0% -12.8 pct pts

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 68.0% 50.9% -13.8 pct pts

 Tier 2 43.7% 36.3% -6.4 pct pts

 All 66.4% 49.7% -13.0 pct pts

Median Monthly Housing Payment

 Tier 1 $1,389.12 $818.42 ($501.08)

 Tier 2 $1,050.77 $691.76 ($326.85)

 All $1,366.34 $810.12 ($485.38)

Modification Steps for Permanent Modifications

Modification Step Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Interest Rate Reduction 95.9% 72.4% 94.4%

Term Extension 59.4% 77.3% 60.6%

Principal Forbearance 30.6% 32.1% 30.7%

All permanent modifications reflect some combination of 

the following modification steps:

HAMP Tier 2 provides another modification opportunity 

for struggling homeowners who do not qualify for a 

HAMP Tier 1 modification, or for those who lose good 

standing (by missing three payments) on their HAMP 

Tier 1 modification. Of the HAMP Tier 2 trial 

modifications started:

• 25% were previously in a HAMP Tier 1 trial or 

permanent modification.

• 12% were previously evaluated for HAMP Tier 1 

and did not meet eligibility requirements.

• 6% were non-owner-occupied properties. 

Characteristic Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Median Monthly Gross 

Income $3,911 $5,085 $3,975 

Median Credit Score 565 559 565

Median Property Value $176,800 $145,000 $175,000 

Additional HAMP Tier 2 Characteristics

Homeowner Characteristics
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

• The HAMP Tier 1 modification was designed to provide relief to homeowners facing a financial hardship by providing a 

modification that would reduce their monthly mortgage payment to an affordable level. HAMP Tier 1 has reduced 

homeowners’ first lien mortgage payments by approximately 36% of the median before-modification payment.

• Under HAMP Tier 1, servicers apply a uniform loan modification waterfall to achieve a monthly mortgage payment of 

31% DTI: capitalization, principal forgiveness (optional), interest rate reduction, term extension, principal forbearance.

o The interest rate is reduced in increments to achieve the target 31% DTI with an interest rate floor of 2%.

o After five years, the interest rate may begin to increase 1% per year (or less) until the Primary Mortgage Market 

Survey (PMMS) rate at time of modification is reached (PMMS averaged 5.04% in 2009 and 4.17% in 2014), at 

which time the interest rate will be fixed for the remaining loan term.

• 83% of HAMP Tier 1 homeowners will experience an interest rate increase after five years.

o The first interest rate increase went into effect in Q3 2014 for the earliest group of HAMP modifications.

o The majority of HAMP homeowners will experience two to three interest rate increases.

o Homeowners who received a modification in 2009-2011 are more likely to experience three to four increases than 

homeowners who received a modification in 2012-2013, most of whom will experience two increases.

o The median amount of the first monthly payment increase is $95, and the median monthly payment increase after 

the final interest rate increase is $211.

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 

* As of March 2015. Assumes no re-defaults of active HAMP Tier 1 modifications. 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Number of Loans

Number of Interest Rate Increases by Quarter*

First Increase Second Increase Third Increase Fourth Increase

7

See Appendix 5 for additional information on HAMP Tier 1 rate increases by state.
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Performance of HAMP Tier 1 Permanent Modifications 

The longer homeowners remain in HAMP without defaulting, the less likely they are to default on their mortgage in the 

future. For example, the percent of loans active in month 12 that disqualified by month 15 is lower than the percent of 

loans active in month six that disqualified by month nine.

Note: A modification's inclusion in the 3-month re-default rate calculation is conditional on the modification 

being active at the start of the 3-month period being measured.

# Months Post 

Modification 

% of Disqualified Modifications3

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Q1 2015 ALL

3 2.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 1.1% 1.0% 1.3%

6 6.7% 6.7% 5.3% 4.3% 3.8% 4.6% 5.5%

12 16.3% 15.6% 12.7% 10.3% 9.4% 10.4% 13.2%

18 22.9% 22.7% 18.9% 15.3% 14.0% 19.6%

24 28.9% 28.0% 23.7% 19.1% 17.8% 24.9%

30 33.4% 32.6% 27.3% 22.4% 29.5%

36 37.6% 36.6% 30.0% 26.0% 33.7%

42 41.1% 39.3% 33.0% 37.3%

48 43.6% 41.6% 36.4% 40.9%

54 46.0% 43.8% 44.1%

60 48.0% 47.5% 47.6%

Performance of HAMP modifications has improved over time. For modifications seasoned 24 months, 17.8% of 

modifications started in 2013 have disqualified, compared to 28.9% of modifications started in 2009. Compared with 

other non-HAMP modifications, HAMP modifications continue to exhibit lower delinquency and re-default rates than 

industry modifications, as reported in the latest report by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The table below shows the performance of HAMP permanent modifications at various seasoning points for those 

modifications that have aged to, or past, the number of months noted. 

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Month

6

Month

9

Month

12

Month

15

Month

18

Month

21

Month

24

Month

27

Month

30

Month

33

Month

36

Month

39

Month

42

Month

45

Month

48

Month

51

Month

54

Month

57

Month

60

3-Month Re-default Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

Conditional Re-default Rate by Modification Year

(% of Active Loans) 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

8

See Appendix 6 for additional information on HAMP Tier 1 performance by vintage.
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Homeowners with Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications

9

8%

5%

15%

35%

13%

8%

16%

Status of Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications 

Action Pending

Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 

Borrower Current / Loan Pay off

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure Starts

Foreclosure Completions

Homeowners now have alternatives due to industry-wide changes instituted since the launch of HAMP. In addition, 

HAMP guidance requires that a servicer work with a delinquent homeowner in a permanent modification to cure the 

delinquency. In the event the homeowner cannot bring a delinquent HAMP modification current without additional 

assistance, the servicer is prohibited from commencing foreclosure proceedings until the homeowner is evaluated for 

other loss mitigation action. The majority of homeowners who disqualify from a HAMP permanent modification receive 

an alternative to foreclosure or resolve their delinquency. Homeowners can also take advantage of other MHA and/or 

government sponsored assistance programs. Of the homeowners who have missed three payments, and therefore 

disqualified from HAMP, approximately 25% have been referred to foreclosure. 

Source: Survey data from large servicers2
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Making Home Affordable Borrower Outreach and Intake Project

10

34%

34%

31%

Final Status of Packages Submitted

Withdrawn /

Incomplete

Rejected

Accepted

37%

58%

5%

Reason for Rejection of Package

Duplicate

Not MHA Eligible

Previous Denial/No

Change in

Circumstance

Outreach and Training Number of Events

Outreach

Traditional 15

Counselor Led 11

Training 

In-Person 14

Web-Based 8

Training and Outreach Events

Packages were electronically delivered by participating agencies to the applicable servicer for review. Nearly 4,000 

packages were accepted as complete for evaluation. The primary reason that servicers rejected complete initial packages 

was that the borrower was not eligible to participate in the MHA program. 

Application Intake Results

From February 2013 to December 2014, Treasury partnered with NeighborWorks America®, a non-profit corporation 

established by Congress and the administrator of the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program (NFMC), to 

implement the Making Home Affordable Outreach and Borrower Intake Project. Through this partnership, Treasury was 

able to engage a nationwide network of housing counseling organizations to increase outreach and support to struggling 

homeowners seeking assistance through MHA. In particular, the project aimed to reach homeowners who were 

potentially eligible for MHA, but who may not be responsive to traditional outreach methods, such as solicitations from 

mortgage servicers. Participating counseling agencies conducted local outreach in communities across the country, 

provided a preliminary assessment of homeowners’ eligibility for MHA, and helped homeowners complete and submit 

applications for assistance under MHA.

NeighborWorks assisted Treasury at MHA borrower 

outreach events throughout the duration of the 

project, and arranged for trained housing counselors to 

be available at each event. Additionally, NeighborWorks 

worked with Treasury to design and conduct counselorled borrower outreach events. These smaller events 

targeted markets and populations that may not have 

been sufficiently served through traditional events.

NeighborWorks also offered participating agencies and 

their counselors a two-day, in-person training course 

through the NeighborWorks Training Institute on how 

to help homeowners through MHA, as well as a variety 

of webinars and place-based training.
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Post Modification Counseling

Counseling Referral Activity by Servicer

Note: Data on Post Modification Counseling is collected from sixteen servicers via survey. Additionally, servicer take-up rates will vary due to 

timing of referrals and individual servicer program design. 

% of Referrals 

Who Take Up 

Counseling

4% 9% 14% 2% 1% 10% 8% 10%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Bank of

America, N.A.

CitiMortgage

Inc

JPMorgan

Chase Bank,

N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select

Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A.

Other HAMP

Servicers

At-Risk Trials

Effective March 2014, Treasury requires certain HAMP participating servicers to offer free financial counseling to 

homeowners with non-GSE loans who are either entering a HAMP trial modification, or those in a permanent HAMP 

modification who are at risk of re-default. The counseling is designed to help the homeowner stay current in the 

modification by addressing the homeowner’s current overall financial situation, and the financial hardship that caused 

the homeowner to default on his or her mortgage loan. 

Through March 2015, participating servicers have referred nearly 233,000 homeowners to financial counseling. Of these 

referrals:

• 62% are permanent modifications considered by the servicers to be at risk of disqualifying from HAMP, 

38% are new trials.

• Nearly 15,000 homeowners started financial counseling, including more than 3,600 who have completed 

counseling (multiple sessions spanning several months), resulting in an overall take up rate of 6%.

11
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

HAMP 

Modifications with 

Earned Principal 

Reduction Under 

PRA4

HAMP 

Modifications with 

Upfront Principal 

Reduction Outside 

of PRA

Total HAMP 

Modifications with 

Principal 

Reduction

All Permanent Modifications Started 181,977 49,943 231,920

Active Permanent Modifications 141,432 39,219 180,651

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications5 $67,817 $54,399 $64,151 

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications (%)6 32.4% 18.0% 30.5%

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Reduced on Permanent 

Modifications5 $16,259,121,672 $3,313,601,755 $19,572,723,427 

The HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA) broadened the use of principal reduction in mortgage modifications as a 

tool to help underwater homeowners. Servicers of non-GSE loans are required to evaluate the benefit of principal 

reduction under HAMP PRA for mortgages with a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio greater than 115% when evaluating a 

homeowner for a HAMP modification. While servicers are required to evaluate homeowners for principal reduction, they 

are not required to reduce principal as part of the modification. 

Under HAMP, servicers provide principal reduction on HAMP modifications in two ways: 

• Under HAMP PRA, principal is reduced to lower the LTV, the investor is eligible to receive an incentive on the amount 

of principal reduced, and the reduction vests over a 3-year period.

• Servicers can also offer principal reduction to homeowners on a HAMP modification outside the requirements of 

HAMP PRA. If they do, the investor receives no incentive payment for the principal reduction and the principal 

reduction can be recognized immediately. 

The HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative

12

The Second Lien Modification Program (2MP) provides additional assistance to homeowners in a first lien permanent 

modification who have an eligible second lien with a participating servicer, including second liens with a qualifying first lien 

modified under the GSEs’ Standard Modification program. This assistance can result in a modification of the second lien, as 

well as a full or partial extinguishment of the second lien.

Second lien modifications follow a series of steps that may include capitalization, interest rate reduction, term extension, 

and principal forbearance or forgiveness. 

All Second Lien Modifications Started (Cumulative)* 146,925

Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien Extinguishments 40,197

Active Second Lien Modifications** 84,813

Active Second Lien Modifications Involving Partial Lien Extinguishments 10,902

The Second Lien Modification Program7

* Includes 5,969 loans that have a qualifying first lien GSE Standard Modification.

** Includes 7,684 loans in Active Non-Payment Status whereby the 1MP has disqualified from HAMP. As a result, the servicer is no 

longer required to report payment activity on the 2MP modification.
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program

The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) Program offers incentives and a streamlined process for 

homeowners looking to exit their homes or sell a rental property through a short sale or deed-in-lieu (DIL) of foreclosure. 

HAFA has established important homeowner protections and an industry standard for streamlined transactions. Effective 

November 2012, the GSEs revised their Standard HAFA program to align with Treasury’s HAFA program. In HAFA 

transactions, homeowners who need to relocate:

• Follow a streamlined process for short sales and DIL transactions that requires no verification of income (unless 

required by investors) and allows for pre-approved short sale terms;

• Receive a waiver of deficiency once the transaction is completed that releases the homeowner from remaining 

mortgage debt; and

• Receive $10,000* in relocation assistance at closing. 

* Prior to February 1, 2015 homeowners received $3,000.

13

The Home Affordable Unemployment Program

The Home Affordable Unemployment Program (UP) provides assistance to homeowners who are unable to make their 

mortgage payments as a result of unemployment. Unemployed homeowners can receive up to 12 months of 

forbearance, during which mortgage payments are reduced or suspended, allowing homeowners to seek employment 

without fear that they will lose their homes to foreclosure.

All UP Forbearance Plans Started 42,971

UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required 36,519

UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required 6,452

Participating servicers 

must consider all 

homeowners not eligible 

for HAMP, or who request 

a short sale or DIL, for 

HAFA in accordance with 

their “HAFA Policy” and 

investor guidelines.

HAFA Activity by Investor Type

Private Portfolio GSE Total

Short Sale 128,177 46,244 141,221 315,642

Deed-in-Lieu 5,943 3,440 32,363 41,746

Total Transactions 

Completed 134,120 49,684 173,584 357,388
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

14

Making Home Affordable Program Activity by Servicer

Servicer 

HAMP Tier 1 

Permanent 

Modifications

HAMP Tier 2 

Permanent 

Modifications

PRA8 Permanent 

Modifications

2MP 

Modifications

HAFA9 non-GSE 

Transactions 

Completed

Bank of America, N.A. 101,910 2,801 6,017 36,780 48,305

CitiMortgage, Inc. 41,414 4,280 4,514 18,990 1,668

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 174,515 1,833 25,150 41,212 36,660

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 148,304 10,109 8,772 4,968 7,051

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 263,692 42,433 80,736 N/A 20,869

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 79,017 11,874 12,671 N/A 15,710

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 198,318 7,772 30,268 22,616 33,636

Other Servicers 371,685 17,600 13,849 22,359 19,905

Total 1,378,855 98,702 181,977 146,925 183,804

As of March 2015, there are 128 servicers that participate in Treasury’s MHA programs, but seven servicers make up 

nearly 90% of non-GSE HAMP modifications. Program activity for these servicers is provided below. 

HAMP Permanent Modifications by Investor

Servicer 

HAMP Permanent Modifications

GSE Private Portfolio Total

Bank of America, N.A. 40,988 45,170 18,553 104,711

CitiMortgage, Inc. 18,091 8,636 18,967 45,694

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 76,461 58,245 41,642 176,348

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 93,728 60,332 4,353 158,413

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 55,902 228,029 22,194 306,125

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 672 83,222 6,997 90,891

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 80,204 43,428 82,458 206,090

Other Servicers 276,028 53,766 59,491 389,285

Total 642,074 580,828 254,655 1,477,557
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Through ongoing compliance reviews performed by MHA-C, a division of Freddie Mac acting as Treasury’s compliance 

agent for MHA, Treasury requires participating servicers to take specific actions to improve their servicing processes, as 

needed. MHA-C tests and evaluates a range of servicers’ activities to determine compliance with MHA guidelines. MHA-C 

shares the results of each review with the servicer, requires remediation of identified issues, and reports to Treasury on 

the results of all reviews. The results of reviews are also used to generate the servicer assessments. 

Each quarter, MHA-C tests between 400 and 600 loan files at each of the largest servicers in order to evaluate whether the 

servicer is in compliance with various aspects of the MHA program guidelines. The same test procedures are performed 

on smaller servicers on a quarterly or semi-annual cycle due to the lower volume of activity. Loan samples are selected 

for testing from each servicer’s population of loan modifications and related activity reported into the MHA system of 

record, as well as from the servicer’s records of non-performing loans with delinquencies from 90 – 120 days. This 

approach provides comprehensive insight into how each servicer is executing MHA programs with respect to properly 

identifying, contacting, evaluating and servicing borrowers who are potentially eligible for the MHA program, as well as the 

accuracy and timeliness of servicer’s reporting of program information including incentive payment accuracy.

In June 2011, Treasury began publishing quarterly servicer assessments for the large servicers participating in MHA to 

drive servicers to improve their performance. The assessments highlight particular compliance activities tested and 

provide a rating of the results. The assessments not only provide greater transparency to the public about servicer 

performance in the program, but also prompt servicers to correct identified instances of non-compliance. 

While the quarterly assessment scoring and reporting is focused on three major compliance categories and the seven 

quantitative metrics tested, MHA-C examines as many as 60 compliance criteria (see Appendix 1) and reports the results of 

all tests to the servicer. For areas of non-compliance or ineffective internal controls, Treasury requires servicers to take 

remedial actions which include, but are not limited to: performing retroactive analysis when an issue is potentially 

systemic, identifying and reevaluating any affected loans, enhancing the effectiveness of internal controls, and conducting 

staff training on servicer procedures and program guidelines. 

In addition to compliance data, the assessments include program results based on data reported by servicers into the MHA 

system of record. These program results are key indicators of how timely and effectively servicers assist eligible 

homeowners under MHA guidelines and report program data to Treasury. Although the servicers are not given an overall 

rating for this data, the results nonetheless compare a servicer’s performance for a given quarter against the other large 

servicers participating in the program.

Starting with the third quarter of 2013, the servicer assessments were enhanced to, among other things, present new 

compliance metrics and related benchmarks. These changes help provide additional insight into the impact of servicer 

performance on the homeowner’s experience, allow for trending analysis of all compliance metrics, and foster further 

improvement in servicer performance.

Servicer participation in MHA is voluntary, based on a contract with Fannie Mae as financial agent on behalf of Treasury. 

Although Treasury does not regulate these institutions and does not have the authority to impose fines or penalties, 

Treasury can, pursuant to the contract, take certain remedial actions against servicers not in compliance with MHA 

guidelines. Such remedial actions include requiring servicers to correct identified instances of noncompliance, as noted 

above. In addition, Treasury can implement financial remedies such as withholding incentive payments owed to servicers. 

Such incentive payments, which are the only payments Treasury makes for the benefit of servicers under the program, 

include payments for every successful permanent modification under HAMP, and payments for completed short sale/DIL 

transactions pursuant to HAFA. 

Making Home Affordable Servicer Assessments

15
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Improvement Needed Servicer Name

Minor

Bank of America, N.A.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Moderate

CitiMortgage, Inc.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC*

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Substantial None

1st Quarter 2015 Servicer Assessment Summary Results

The Determination Process: Results of the Data

Treasury reviews the compliance data and ratings, the program results metrics, and other relevant factors affecting servicer 

performance (including, but not limited to, a servicer’s progress in implementing previously identified improvements) in 

determining whether a servicer needs substantial improvement, moderate improvement, or minor improvement to its 

overall performance under MHA guidelines. The assessments summarize the significant factors impacting those decisions. 

Based on those assessments, Treasury may take remedial action against servicers. 

Consequences for Servicers

For servicers in need of substantial improvement, Treasury will, absent extenuating circumstances, withhold financial 

incentives owed to those servicers until they make certain identified improvements. In certain cases, particularly where 

there is a failure to correct identified problems within a reasonable time, Treasury may also permanently reduce the 

financial incentives. Servicers in need of moderate improvement may be subject to withholding in the future if they fail to 

make certain identified improvements. All withholdings apply only to incentives owed to servicers for their participation in 

MHA; these withholdings do not apply to incentives paid to servicers for the benefit of homeowners or investors. 

16

* Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC was found to need moderate improvement, however, their compliance results approached the level 

required for a determination of minor improvement. 
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

The metrics and benchmarks below reflect compliance areas tested and reported on across the large servicers to 

determine servicers’ adherence to MHA Program Requirements. Servicer results (see overleaf) reflect percentages of 

tests that did not have a desired outcome.

Compliance Metrics Overview 

17

Category Metric Benchmark

 Identifying and 

Contacting 

Homeowners

Assesses whether the 

servicer identifies and 

communicates 

appropriately with 

potentially eligible 

MHA homeowners.



Single Point of Contact Assignment 

% Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did 

not concur that the servicer had assigned a 

Single Point of Contact to a homeowner in 

accordance with MHA guidelines

5.0%



Second Look % Disagree 

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did 

not concur with servicer's MHA determination 

for applicable programs

2.0%



Second Look % Unable to Determine

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C 

was not able to conclude on the servicer's MHA 

determination for applicable programs

2.0%

 Homeowner 

Evaluation and 

Assistance

Assesses whether 

servicer correctly 

evaluates homeowners' 

eligibility for MHA 

programs and 

accurately 

communicates 

decisions. 



Income Calculation Error % 

Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income 

calculation differs from the servicer's by more 

than 5% for applicable programs

2.0%



Non-Approval Notice % Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did 

not concur with completion and accuracy of the 

notices sent to homeowners communicating 

reasons for non-approval, in accordance with 

MHA guidelines

5.0%

 Program 

Management and 

Reporting

Assesses whether the 

servicer has effective 

program management 

and submits timely and 

accurate program 

reports and 

information.



Incentive Payment Data Errors 

Average percentage of differences in calculated 

incentives resulting from data discrepancies 

between servicer files and the MHA system of 

record for applicable programs

2.0%



Disqualified Modification % 

Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did 

not concur with servicer's processing of 

defaulted HAMP modifications, in accordance 

with MHA guidelines

5.0%
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Servicer Single Point 

of Contact

Second Look 

Disagree

Second Look 

Unable to 

Determine

Income 

Calculation 

Error 

NonApproval 

Notice Noncompliance

Incentive 

Payment 

Data Errors 

Disqualified 

Modification 

Noncompliance

BENCHMARK 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 5.0% 2.0% 5.0%

Bank of 

America, N.A.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8%

Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

CitiMortgage,

Inc.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 4.4% 0.5% 3.0% 5.0% 0.5% 2.3%

Rating *** ** *** ** *** *** ***

JP Morgan 

Chase Bank, 

N.A.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 1.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nationstar 

Mortgage LLC

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 4.4% 2.5% 5.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Rating ***   **  *** *** ***

Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.7% 1.8%

Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Select 

Portfolio 

Servicing, Inc.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.0% 1.8% 1.2% 0.0%

Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 9.3%

Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** *

18

1st Quarter Compliance Results
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Servicer 

Q1 

2011

Q2 

2011

Q3 

2011

Q4 

2011

Q1 

2012

Q2 

2012

Q3 

2012

Q4 

2012

Q1 

2013

Q2 

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2013

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2014

Q1 

2015

Second Look % Disagree

Bank of 

America

1.5% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4%

CitiMortgage 2.0% 0.5% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 6.7% 1.3% 4.7% 5.6% 4.3% 1.4% 15.2% 4.2% 3.7% 4.4%

JPMorgan 

Chase 1.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 1.0% 1.4% 1.8% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 0.4%

Nationstar N/A N/A 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4%

Ocwen 6.7% 2.7% 0.0% 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 3.1% 2.3% 3.8% 3.5% 0.5% 3.1% 0.5% 1.9%

SPS 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2.0% 1.3% 2.0% 1.7% 4.0% 1.2% 0.6% 1.2% 2.2% 0.5%

Wells Fargo 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 1.3% 3.0% 1.3% 3.0% 4.4% 3.1% 2.5% 2.8% 1.4% 1.0% 1.4%

Second Look Unable to Determine %

Bank of 

America

18.8% 8.2% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CitiMortgage 13.3% 5.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% 3.8% 6.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

JPMorgan 

Chase 11.3% 3.2% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 1.7% 1.4% 3.8% 3.1% 2.7% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Nationstar N/A N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 2.5%

Ocwen 10.3% 3.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%

SPS 2.3% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Wells Fargo 6.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Income Calculation Error %

Bank of 

America

22.0% 13.2% 6.0% 6.0% 5.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

CitiMortgage 10.0% 12.0% 6.0% 3.0% 4.0% 1.0% 3.1% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 6.0% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0%

JPMorgan 

Chase 31.0% 20.6% 6.0% 10.0% 9.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

Nationstar N/A N/A 3.0% 3.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 5.0%

Ocwen 33.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.3% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0%

SPS 15.0% 10.0% 3.2% 1.0% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.1% 2.1% 3.1% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0%

Wells Fargo 27.0% 4.4% 5.5% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Starting with the third quarter of 2013, the Servicer Assessment has been enhanced to present new compliance metrics 

and related benchmarks, including a methodology change to the metrics on this page. The coverage of these metrics now 

includes additional MHA components and programs, such as HAMP Tier 2, and the Second Lien Modification Program. 

Thus, starting in Q3 2013, the results of these metrics are not entirely comparable to previous quarters.

Compliance Results Trending

19
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Trials Aged 6+ Months (% of Active Trials)10

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

% of Active Trials 6+ Months

Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

# Days

Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015

This quarterly metric measures trials lasting six months or longer as a share of all active trials. These figures include trial

modifications that have been cancelled or converted to permanent modifications by the servicer and are pending 

reporting to the program system of record. Additionally, servicers may process cancellations of permanent modifications 

for various reasons, including, but not limited to, data corrections, loan repurchase agreements, etc. This process requires 

reverting the impacted permanent modifications to trials in the HAMP system of record with re-boarding of some of these 

permanent modifications in subsequent reporting periods.

This quarterly metric measures servicer response time for homeowner inquiries escalated to MHA Support Centers. 

Effective February 1, 2011, a target of 30 calendar days was established for non-GSE escalation cases, including an 

estimated 5 days processing by the MHA Support Centers. The methodology for calculating average days to respond to 

escalated cases includes non-GSE cases escalated on or after February 1, 2011. Investor denial cases escalated prior to 

November 1, 2011, cases involving bankruptcy, and those that did not require servicer actions are not included in the 

calculation of servicer time to resolve escalations.

Program Results

20

Q2’14 579 469 492 1,226 2,728 1,076 931

Q3’14 495 411 351 1,378 943 504 672

Q4’14 214 390 304 1,149 548 362 651

Q1’15 210 319 279 1,640 1,123 385 503

Average # Aged Trials
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report First Quarter 2015

Timely Reporting of Permanent Modifications (% Reported within the Month of Conversion)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

% Reported Timely

Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015

Missing Permanent Modification Status Reports (%)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

% Missing

Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015

This quarterly metric measures the servicer’s ability to promptly report on the current status of permanent modifications. 

Inconsistent and untimely reporting of modification status reports may impact incentive compensation and loan 

performance analysis.

Treasury revised its Federally Declared Disaster (FDD) guidance, allowing servicers to suspend the reporting of permanent 

modification status for loans where the homeowner was impacted by Hurricane Sandy or any other FDD. This revised 

guidance may impact missing permanent modification status reporting.

This quarterly metric measures the servicer’s ability to promptly report the conversion from a trial to a permanent 

modification. Untimely reporting of permanent modification conversions impacts incentive compensation, including the 

possible delay of homeowner incentives. In addition, it hinders the effectiveness of program monitoring and 

transparency. 

21

Program Results
22

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) provides eligible homeowners the opportunity to lower their first lien mortgage 

payment through a loan modification. HAMP includes a Tier 1 modification for Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and nonGSE homeowners and a Tier 2 for non-GSE homeowners. In October 2011, the GSEs launched the Servicer Alignment Initiative (SAI), 

creating the GSE Standard Modification. Tier 2 is modeled after the GSE Standard Modification and expands HAMP eligibility to 

include homeowners with properties currently occupied by a tenant as well as vacant properties the homeowner intends to rent.

Treasury FHA-HAMP provides first lien modifications for distressed homeowners in loans insured or guaranteed through the Federal 

Housing Administration. The FHA introduced FHA-HAMP to provide assistance to borrowers with FHA-insured loans who are unable 

to meet their mortgage payments. Treasury pays incentives to servicers for FHA-insured first lien non-GSE mortgages that are 

modified under Treasury FHA-HAMP guidelines. 

RD-HAMP provides first lien modifications for distressed homeowners in loans guaranteed through the Rural Housing Service. 

The Second Lien Modification Program (2MP) provides modifications and extinguishments on second liens when there has been an 

eligible first lien modification on the same property.

The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) Program provides transition alternatives to foreclosure in the form of a short 

sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. The GSE Standard HAFA program is closely aligned with Treasury’s MHA HAFA program. 

The Home Affordable Unemployment Program (UP) provides temporary forbearance of mortgage principal to enable unemployed 

homeowners to look for a new job without fear of foreclosure.

General MHA Program Notes:

MHA Program Effective Dates:

HAMP First Lien: April 6, 2009

PRA: October 1, 2010

2MP: August 13, 2009

HAFA: April 5, 2010

HAMP, PRA, Treasury FHA-HAMP, RD-HAMP, 2MP, and HAFA program data include activity reported into the HAMP system of record 

through the end of cycle for the current reporting month, though the effective date may occur in the following month.

MHA First Lien Program Notes:

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started includes: HAMP Tier 1, HAMP Tier 2, GSE Standard Modifications and both Treasury 

FHA- and RD-HAMP. HAMP Tier 1 includes both GSE and non-GSE modifications. The GSEs do not participate in HAMP Tier 2, 

however the GSE Standard Modification is similar to HAMP Tier 2. Treasury's FHA-HAMP and RD-HAMP are similar to HAMP Tier 1. 

GSE Standard Modification data is provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of March 2015. The GSEs undertake other foreclosure 

prevention activities beyond their participation in MHA that are not reflected in this report. The latest Federal Housing Finance 

Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report can be found at: www.FHFA.gov.
23

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Treasury FHA-HAMP Program Notes: 

The FHA undertakes foreclosure prevention activities beyond their participation in MHA that are not reflected in this report. Please 

refer to the latest edition of the Obama Administration’s Housing Scorecard for the total number of loss mitigation and early 

delinquency interventions FHA has offered since April 1, 2009. Please visit www.hud.gov to view the latest Housing Scorecard.

2MP Program Notes:

Number of modifications started is net of cancellations, which are primarily due to servicer data corrections.

2MP loans previously reported under top servicers that were transferred to or acquired by non-participating 2MP servicers are 

reflected in “Other Servicers.”

Homeowners with an active first lien permanent modification who have also received a 2MP modification realize a higher monthly 

payment reduction on their first lien compared to the overall population of first line homeowners as the median first lien unpaid 

principal balance is higher.

HAFA Program Notes:

Unless otherwise noted, HAFA Transactions Completed includes GSE activity under the MHA program in addition to the GSE Standard 

HAFA program implemented in November 2012. GSE Standard HAFA data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of March 

2015. It does not include other GSE short sale and DIL activity outside the HAFA program. Please refer to the latest Federal Housing 

Finance Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report for the total number of short sales and DIL of foreclosure actions the GSEs have 

completed since 4Q 2008. Please visit www.FHFA.gov for the complete FHFA report. 

A short sale requires a third-party purchaser and cooperation of junior lien holders and mortgage insurers to complete the 

transaction.

The debt relief represents the obligation relieved by the short sale or deed-in-lieu transaction and is calculated as the unpaid principal 

balance and allowable transactions costs less the property sales price. The allowable transaction costs may include release of any 

subordinate lien, homeowner relocation assistance, sales commission, and closing costs for taxes, title, and attorney fees.

PRA Program Notes:

Eligible loans include those receiving evaluation under HAMP PRA guidelines plus loans that did not require an evaluation but 

received principal reduction on their modification.

Servicer Assessment Notes:

Treasury’s foremost goal is to assist struggling homeowners who may be eligible for MHA. The servicer assessments have set a 

benchmark for providing detailed information about how mortgage servicers are performing against specific metrics. But, in addition 

to this direct effect, MHA has had an important indirect effect on the market as well. MHA has established standards that have 

improved mortgage modifications across the industry, and has led to important changes in the way mortgage servicers assist 

struggling homeowners generally. These changes include standards for how mortgage modifications should be designed so that they 

are sustainable, standards for communications with homeowners so that the process is as efficient and as understandable as possible, 

and a variety of standards for protecting homeowners, such as prohibitions on “dual tracking” – simultaneously evaluating a 

homeowner for a modification while proceeding to foreclose. Treasury believes these assessments will continue to set the standard 

for transparency about mortgage servicer efforts to assist homeowners.
24

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Although the compliance reviews that form the basis for the servicer assessments emphasize objective measurements and observed 

facts, compliance reviews still involve a certain level of judgment. Compliance reviews are also retrospective in nature – looking 

backward, not forward, which means that activities identified as needing improvement in a given quarter may already be under 

remediation by the servicer. In addition, the compliance reviews use “sampling” as a testing methodology. Sampling, an industryaccepted auditing technique, looks at a subset of a particular population of transactions, rather than the entirety of the population of 

transactions, to assess a servicer’s overall performance in that particular activity.

It is important to note that Treasury’s compliance work related to MHA applies only to those servicers that have agreed to participate 

in MHA for mortgage loans that are not owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (the GSEs). Treasury cannot and does 

not perform compliance reviews of (1) mortgage loans or activities that fall outside of MHA, (2) GSE loans or (3) those loans insured 

through the Federal Housing Administration. For each servicer, the loans that are eligible for MHA represent only a portion of that 

servicer’s overall mortgage servicing operation. 

Compliance Metrics 

Single Point of Contact Assignment % Noncompliance:

Servicers are required to assign certain delinquent homeowners to a Single Point of Contact (SPOC). This metric measures the 

percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur that the servicer had assigned a SPOC to a homeowner in a timely fashion 

and otherwise in accordance with MHA guidelines. 

For SPOC Assignment Noncompliance results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: 

assigning a SPOC to the homeowner, and correcting system and operational processes such that SPOCs are properly assigned to 

homeowners in a timely fashion.

Second Look % Disagree:

Second Look is a process in which MHA-C reviews loans not in a permanent modification, to assess the timeliness and accuracy of the 

servicer’s homeowner outreach and eligibility review in order to verify that the homeowner was properly considered, denied or 

deemed ineligible for receiving a permanent modification. This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed in Second Look 

where MHA-C did not concur with a servicer’s solicitation efforts and/or eligibility review. 

Second Look % Unable to Determine:

This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed in Second Look for which MHA-C is not able to determine, based on the 

documentation provided, whether the homeowner was properly considered, denied or deemed ineligible for receiving a permanent 

modification.

For both Second Look Disagree and Unable to Determine results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are 

not limited to: reconsidering homeowners for a modification if they were not properly solicited or incorrectly evaluated, retaining 

documentation to support solicitation efforts and eligibility determination, and, if applicable, engaging in systemic process 

remediation. All loans categorized as Disagree or Unable to Determine remain on foreclosure hold until the servicer completes the 

appropriate corrective actions.
25

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Income Calculation Error %:

Correctly calculating homeowners’ monthly income is a critical component of evaluating eligibility for MHA, as well as establishing an 

accurate modification payment. This metric measures how often MHA-C disagrees with a servicer’s calculation of a homeowner’s 

Monthly Gross Income, allowing for up to a 5% differential from MHA-C’s calculations. 

For Income Calculation Errors, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: correcting income 

errors, requiring the servicer to review their own income calculation accuracy, enhancing policies and procedures, and conducting 

staff training on income calculation. 

Non-Approval Notice % Noncompliance:

Correctly communicating reasons for non-approval may affect homeowners’ awareness of other foreclosure alternatives or the ability 

to challenge the non-approval. This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with the 

completion or accuracy of the notices sent to homeowners communicating reasons for non-approval, in accordance with MHA 

guidelines. 

For Non-Approval Notice results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: correcting the 

non-approval letter template, and engaging in systemic process remediation in order to deliver accurate non-approval notices.

Incentive Payment Data Errors:

Treasury provides incentives for servicers, investors, and homeowners for permanent modifications completed under MHA. Although 

intended for different recipients, all incentives are initially paid to servicers to distribute to the appropriate parties. Data that 

servicers report to the program system of record is used to calculate the incentives due to servicers, investors, and homeowners. This 

metric measures how data anomalies between servicer loan files and the reported information affect incentive payments. 

For Incentive Payment Data Error results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: 

correcting the identified errors and correcting system and operational processes such that accurate data is mapped to its appropriate 

places in the program system of record. 

Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance:

Permanent modifications on which homeowners lose good standing are subsequently disqualified from the program. This metric 

measures the percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not concur with a servicer’s processing of defaulted HAMP 

modifications, in accordance with MHA guidelines. 

For Disqualified Modification results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: correcting 

the status of improperly disqualified modifications and reporting the corrected data to the program system of record.
26

MHA-C Compliance Criteria Tested

Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

Second Look 

Directed Actions

Second Lien Solicitation Second Look Servicers have solicited borrowers with second liens for which a 

HAMP modification exists on the first lien

Initial Packages sent after 

Right Party Contact (RPC) Second Look Servicers sent potentially eligible borrowers HAMP packages following RPC

Timely SPOC Assignment Second Look Servicers assigned a Single Point of Contact and sent a SPOC 

assignment letter to potentially eligible borrowers following RPC

Content of Borrower Notices Second Look Borrower Notices contained required information

Timely Acknowledgement 

Letter sent Core Eligibility/Incentive

Upon receiving any part of a HAMP package, servicers sent an 

Acknowledgement Letter to the borrower within the required time 

frame

Accuracy of Incomplete 

Information Notice (IIN) sent, 

where applicable

Second Look

Upon receiving part of a HAMP Package but not all required 

information, servicers sent an Incomplete Information Notice to the 

borrower listing documentation still needed

Timely mailing of IIN, where 

applicable Second Look Servicer sent Incomplete Information Notices within required time 

frame

Validation of Tier 1 Denials Second Look Denials of Tier 1 HAMP modifications are valid

Validation of Tier 2 Denials Second Look Denials of Tier 2 HAMP modifications are valid

Second Lien Denials Second Look Denials of second lien modifications are valid

Non-Approval Notice Second Look Servicer included correct denial reason in Non-Approval Notice and 

sent within 10 days of decision

Denial Reporting Second Look Servicer reported correct denial reason to the HAMP Program 

Administrator

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

Dodd Frank Certification Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer Obtained a signed Dodd-Frank Certification from borrowers 

receiving a HAMP modification 

Approval Decision Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer made correct decision to approve the modification

Completeness of full 

Underwriting package

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive Servicer obtained a completed package to underwrite modification

Accuracy of Income 

calculation Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer correctly calculated borrower income

Accurate HAMP Eligibility 

decision (approvals) Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer made correct decision to approve the modification

Accurate HAMP Underwriting Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer correctly underwrote the modification to ensure correct 

payment terms

Accurate Escrow Analysis Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer performed accurate analysis of borrower escrow to use in 

modification 

HAMP Solicitation Servicers appropriately solicited borrowers for HAMP and that the 

servicer met the reasonable efforts requirements

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes
27

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Property Valuation (AVM, 

BPO) obtained Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer obtained appraisal or broker price opinion for the property

Accuracy of Trial Period Plan 

(TPP) Notice Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicers sends accurate TPP Notices to borrowers entering a Trial modification

Application of TPP payments Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately applies borrower TPP payments

Re-Default and Loss of Good 

Standing

Directed Actions, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Modifications that are disqualified from HAMP due to Loss of Good 

Standing or canceled from TPP are done so accurately and in a timely 

manner

NPV model use/re-coding 

compliance Net Present Value Servicer NPV models provide accurate results consistent with the 

Treasury NPV model

Accuracy of NPV inputs Net Present Value Servicers input accurate data into the NPV model

Accuracy of Permanent 

Modification Agreement Core Eligibility/Incentive

Permanent Modification Agreement includes correct terms including 

payment amount, interest rate, unpaid principal balance, and 

forbearance amount

Waiver of Late Charges & 

other Fees at conversion 

from TPP to Perm. Mod.

Core Eligibility/Incentive

At time of conversion to permanent modification, servicer has 

waived all late charges and other fees related to the delinquency of 

the original loan

Application of Unapplied 

Funds at end of TPP Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately applies payment amounts held in suspense at end 

of Trial Plan

Accurate 2MP Eligibility 

Assessment

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately evaluated borrower for second lien modification

Accurate calculation of 2MP 

TPP/Modification Terms Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately calculates second lien modification terms

Timely mailing and accuracy 

of 2MP Non-Approval Notice, 

where applicable

Second Look Servicer send accurate Non-Approval Notices for denied second lien 

modifications within specified time frame 

Accurate HAFA Eligibility 

Assessment

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Servicer reviews HAFA applications and makes appropriate eligibility 

decision 

HAFA - Release of Liens Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicers obtained release of all liens on properties completing a 

HAFA short sale or deed-in-lieu

Validation of HAFA Denials Second Look Servicer properly evaluated borrower and denial is valid

Program Management and Reporting

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

HAMP Incentive 

Compensation - Servicer, 

Borrower & Investor

Core Eligibility/Incentive Incentive compensation is accurate based on loan file documentation

Application of Borrower 

Incentives Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately applies borrower incentives to unpaid principal 

balance within 30 days of receipt

Timely and accurate 120-Day 

Notice of Interest Rate 

Increase

Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sends accurate first notice of Interest Rate Increase between 

120 and 240 days prior to rate increase

Timely and accurate 60-Day 

Notice of Interest Rate 

Increase

Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sends accurate second notice of Interest Rate Increase 

between 60 and 75 days prior to rate increase
28

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Accuracy of step rate 

increases Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately calculates and implements HAMP rate increases

Appropriate timing on 

reporting of denial to IR2 (i.e. 

at least 30 days after letter 

sent)

Second Look Servicer reports HAMP denials to the Program Administrator in 

accordance with program guidelines

Accurate reporting of HAMP 

Trials/Perm Mods to IR2 Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicers accurately report modification information to the Program 

Administrator including all data used in calculating incentives

2MP Incentive Compensation 

- Servicer, Borrower & 

Investor

Core Eligibility/Incentive Incentive compensation for second lien modifications is accurate

Accurate reporting of 2MP 

Trials/Perm Mods to IR2 Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicers report accurate modification data to Program 

Administrator with respect to second lien modifications

HAFA Incentive 

Compensation - Servicer, 

Borrower & Investor

Core Eligibility/Incentive Incentive compensation for HAFA transactions is accurate based on 

loan file documentation

Accuracy of reporting of 

HAFA activity to IR2 Core Eligibility/Incentive

Servicers report accurate modification data to Program 

Administrator with respect to HAFA short sale and deed-in-lieu 

transactions

Re-default and Loss of Good 

Standing

Directed Actions, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Modifications that are disqualified from HAMP due to Loss of Good 

Standing or canceled from TPP are done so accurately and in a timely 

manner

Pre-Foreclosure affirmation 

provided by Relationship 

Manager (SPOC)

Directed Actions SPOC provided affirmation that all available loss mitigation options 

had been exhausted

Accuracy of Foreclosure 

Referrals Directed Actions Foreclosure referrals meet the requirements of the MHA Handbook

Certification provided to 

Foreclosure attorney Directed Actions Servicer provided certification that HAMP modification had been 

explored and all other loss mitigation options had been exhausted
29

Appendix 2: Terms and Methodologies

Average Delinquency at Trial Start:

For all permanent modifications started, the average number of days delinquent as of the trial plan start date. Delinquency is 

calculated as the number of days between the homeowner's last paid installment before the trial plan and the first payment due date 

of the trial plan.

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio:

Ratio of total monthly debt payments (including mortgage principal and interest, taxes, insurance, homeowners association and/or 

condo fees, plus payments on installment debts, junior liens, alimony, car lease payments and investment property payments) to 

monthly gross income. Homeowners who have a back-end debt-to-income ratio of greater than 55% are required to seek housing 

counseling under program guidelines.

Disqualification:

A permanent modification disqualifies from HAMP when the borrower has missed the equivalent of three full monthly payments. 

Once disqualified, the borrower is no longer eligible to receive HAMP incentives. However, the terms of the permanent modification 

remain the same, and the servicer will continue to work with the borrower to cure the delinquency or identify other loss mitigation 

options.

Servicers are required to report monthly payment information on HAMP modifications in the form of an Official Monthly Report 

(OMR). If a servicer does not report an OMR for a loan in a given month, the performance of that loan is not included in official 

Treasury reporting for that month. In addition, reported loan counts may shift from prior reports due to servicer data corrections.

Eligible Loans:

Homeowners with HAMP eligible loans, which include conventional loans that were originated on or before January 1, 2009; excludes 

loans with current unpaid principal balances greater than current conforming loan limits-current unpaid principal balance must be no 

greater than: $729,750 for a single-unit property, 2 units: $934,200, 3 Units: $1,129,250, 4 Units: $1,403,400; FHA and VA loans; loans 

where investor pooling and servicing agreements preclude modification; and manufactured housing loans with title/chattel issues 

that exclude them from HAMP. 

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio:

Ratio of housing expenses (principal, interest, taxes, insurance and homeowners association and/or condo fees) to monthly gross 

income. 

Median Monthly Housing Payment:

Principal and interest payment. Before modification payment is homeowner’s current payment at time of evaluation.
30

 Note # Section End Notes 

1 HAMP

As reported into the HAMP system of record by servicers. Excludes Treasury FHA-HAMP 

modifications. Totals reflect impact of servicing transfers. Servicers may enter new trial 

modifications into the HAMP system of record at any time.

2 HAMP

Data is as reported by servicers for actions completed through the end of the month and reflects the 

status of homeowners as of that date; a homeowner's status may change over time. Survey data is 

not subject to the same data quality checks as data uploaded into the HAMP system of record. 

Excludes cancellations and disqualifications pending data corrections and loans otherwise removed 

from servicing portfolios.

3 HAMP

Servicers did not submit 12,904 OMRs for modifications that have aged up to or through 60 months, 

or 1.5% of the total required OMRs in the current reporting period. In addition, reported loan 

counts may shift from prior reports due to servicer data corrections. If it was assumed that all 

unreported OMRs reflect either a current payment status or the maximum number of missed 

payments based on the most recently submitted OMR, the re-default rate for permanent 

modifications that have aged 60 months may range between 47.2% and 47.5%. 

4 Other MHA Programs Includes some modifications with additional principal reduction outside of HAMP PRA.

5 Other MHA Programs Under HAMP PRA, principal reduction vests over a 3-year period. The amounts noted reflect the 

entire amount that may be forgiven.

6 Other MHA Programs Principal amount reduced as a percentage of before-modification UPB, excluding capitalization.

7 Other MHA Programs

Survey data indicates that program to date, 356,535 qualifying first lien modifications have been 

matched with a second lien. Of these matched second liens, approximately 54% are found to be 

ineligible for a 2MP modification. The most common reasons for ineligibility are: cancellation or 

failure of a trial or permanent first lien HAMP modification; extinguishment of the second lien prior 

to evaluation for 2MP; failure of a 2MP trial modification; and some homeowners with eligible 

second liens decline to participate in 2MP.

8 Servicer

While both GSE and non-GSE loans are eligible for HAMP, at the present time due to GSE policy, 

servicers can only offer PRA on non-GSE modifications under HAMP. Servicer volume can vary 

based on the investor composition of the servicer’s portfolio and respective policy with regards to 

PRA. 

9 Servicer Includes non-GSE activity under the MHA program only. Servicer GSE program data not available.

10 Servicer

These figures include trial modifications that have been converted to permanent modifications, but 

not reported as such in the HAMP system of record. Additionally, servicers may process 

cancellations of permanent modifications for reasons, including but not limited to, data corrections, 

loan repurchase agreements, etc. This process requires reverting the impacted permanent 

modifications to trials in the HAMP system of record with re-boarding of some of these permanent 

modifications in subsequent reporting periods. Prior to being re-boarded as permanent 

modifications, these modifications are reported as Active Trials. These modifications may be 6 

months or more beyond their first trial payment due date resulting in their classification as an Aged 

Trials. As a result, fluctuations are expected in this population.

Appendix 3: End Notes
31

 State Trial Modifications Started Permanent Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

AK 1,240 697 $479.33 31%

AL 16,303 9,622 $261.33 31%

AR 6,389 3,645 $247.48 32%

AZ 91,089 53,785 $441.39 37%

CA 495,037 337,627 $714.64 37%

CO 31,082 19,564 $407.54 33%

CT 31,545 20,914 $528.40 37%

DC 4,119 2,576 $545.88 32%

DE 7,618 4,914 $409.28 32%

FL 286,748 182,143 $470.04 40%

GA 88,539 54,070 $359.68 36%

HI 8,381 5,516 $795.58 34%

IA 7,000 3,998 $248.58 32%

ID 8,639 5,294 $368.41 33%

IL 120,306 78,443 $505.16 40%

IN 25,504 15,498 $259.41 33%

KS 6,780 3,877 $287.51 32%

KY 10,448 6,299 $264.41 33%

LA 16,001 9,804 $281.89 32%

MA 52,802 35,623 $581.27 35%

MD 75,194 48,934 $565.68 34%

ME 6,749 4,532 $387.57 35%

MI 69,373 42,301 $341.95 37%

MN 36,292 22,372 $418.83 35%

MO 27,113 16,107 $292.41 34%

MS 9,952 6,091 $250.73 33%

MT 2,795 1,620 $398.00 32%

NC 47,676 29,011 $302.43 33%

ND 473 246 $271.02 30%

NE 3,760 2,272 $260.34 33%

NH 10,198 6,763 $466.40 34%

NJ 80,807 52,891 $629.88 37%

NM 8,330 5,127 $346.98 33%

NV 52,939 32,219 $526.15 38%

NY 116,878 77,448 $786.01 39%

OH 57,290 33,300 $289.51 36%

OK 7,353 4,103 $244.46 32%

OR 25,482 16,028 $455.45 34%

PA 57,162 36,159 $344.01 33%

RI 10,981 7,444 $536.91 39%

SC 24,933 14,924 $296.53 33%

SD 1,016 552 $257.81 29%

TN 28,196 17,375 $284.78 34%

TX 78,732 44,720 $283.40 33%

UT 18,897 12,084 $430.11 32%

VA 54,446 34,153 $483.72 32%

VT 2,008 1,403 $364.21 33%

WA 47,348 31,070 $503.88 33%

WI 23,623 15,078 $345.26 35%

WV 3,581 2,089 $308.50 30%

WY 1,196 727 $357.56 29%

PR 5,681 4,478 $287.62 37%

Nationwide* 2,312,068 1,477,557 $485.38 36%

* Includes U.S. Territories

Appendix 4: HAMP Activity by State
32

AK 44.94% 6.8% $1,464.01 $4,166.84 $213,558.13 $857.08 $93.08 $179.77 -$410.00

AL 46.42% 6.8% $873.13 $2,285.28 $120,523.08 $512.80 $48.79 $99.60 -$227.58

AR 45.56% 6.6% $807.02 $2,122.76 $114,914.69 $468.96 $48.81 $101.88 -$200.94

AZ 49.27% 6.4% $1,193.98 $2,816.67 $178,711.12 $672.49 $79.46 $193.64 -$290.83

CA 48.63% 6.1% $1,942.92 $4,683.08 $306,752.22 $1,093.99 $138.19 $317.63 -$437.83

CO 46.27% 6.4% $1,237.15 $3,196.11 $189,363.94 $754.47 $81.54 $181.59 -$278.11

CT 45.37% 6.5% $1,458.75 $4,333.33 $211,071.74 $804.83 $92.74 $204.30 -$387.34

DC 47.88% 6.4% $1,711.11 $4,120.63 $275,998.59 $994.16 $122.76 $275.12 -$368.62

DE 47.02% 6.5% $1,282.66 $3,105.00 $196,114.66 $761.34 $83.80 $176.84 -$300.05

FL 47.58% 6.5% $1,192.97 $3,276.00 $170,694.06 $629.40 $75.97 $172.23 -$333.73

GA 47.37% 6.5% $1,006.22 $2,650.00 $144,027.35 $570.63 $62.49 $140.82 -$270.05

HI 48.93% 6.3% $2,416.54 $5,370.95 $392,363.32 $1,399.42 $175.85 $382.47 -$490.40

IA 44.34% 6.6% $780.80 $2,306.98 $109,000.00 $437.34 $45.69 $95.58 -$202.91

ID 48.46% 6.5% $1,147.62 $2,726.36 $170,733.94 $668.98 $74.76 $166.80 -$275.96

IL 46.93% 6.5% $1,282.77 $3,725.33 $179,838.29 $662.06 $80.10 $182.51 -$373.13

IN 45.98% 6.8% $817.68 $2,164.92 $110,470.20 $464.38 $45.60 $96.64 -$215.57

KS 44.44% 6.6% $899.96 $2,729.50 $126,575.88 $510.18 $51.64 $111.90 -$232.93

KY 45.49% 6.8% $808.55 $2,209.50 $111,776.81 $467.60 $46.72 $98.41 -$210.02

LA 45.50% 6.9% $899.99 $2,575.10 $125,269.10 $510.80 $51.93 $104.85 -$247.63

MA 46.98% 6.4% $1,662.23 $4,343.95 $250,452.55 $939.62 $110.34 $245.47 -$402.99

MD 46.77% 6.4% $1,669.09 $4,333.00 $259,287.66 $960.18 $115.19 $257.61 -$386.89

ME 46.52% 6.5% $1,146.74 $3,034.50 $165,266.72 $641.89 $71.87 $149.77 -$293.77

MI 46.78% 6.5% $958.43 $2,681.00 $130,378.60 $522.87 $55.62 $126.91 -$262.28

MN 46.02% 6.3% $1,206.59 $3,310.67 $179,234.95 $695.63 $77.93 $179.63 -$293.19

MO 45.89% 6.6% $884.75 $2,494.83 $124,385.32 $498.65 $52.62 $111.58 -$240.69

MS 46.18% 6.9% $819.44 $2,237.65 $112,063.64 $458.31 $45.60 $91.67 -$228.55

MT 46.58% 6.4% $1,262.50 $3,260.09 $192,089.87 $740.97 $81.90 $173.27 -$298.97

NC 46.23% 6.5% $954.12 $2,526.69 $135,285.04 $554.45 $57.40 $119.72 -$243.68

ND 41.57% 6.6% $882.50 $2,908.74 $135,690.93 $555.10 $56.31 $118.03 -$185.42

NE 43.69% 6.7% $787.29 $2,503.75 $110,033.53 $464.13 $45.93 $93.73 -$210.64

NH 43.96% 6.4% $1,351.63 $4,160.32 $199,015.18 $775.11 $85.95 $186.15 -$332.24

Appendix 5: HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after All 

Increases

Final Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

State

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I After Mod UPB

After Mod 

Monthly 

P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Before Mod 

DTI

 Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

Median Values
33

Appendix 5: HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after All 

Increases

Final Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

State

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I After Mod UPB

After Mod 

Monthly 

P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Before Mod 

DTI

 Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

Median Values

NJ 45.27% 6.4% $1,711.70 $5,238.00 $251,321.42 $910.35 $112.12 $244.89 -$449.49

NM 47.08% 6.5% $1,062.81 $2,751.00 $156,814.21 $628.12 $67.95 $146.63 -$272.79

NV 50.03% 6.3% $1,370.53 $3,133.58 $207,818.57 $758.71 $92.96 $222.31 -$338.45

NY 47.17% 6.4% $2,085.57 $5,687.50 $311,593.88 $1,112.69 $139.91 $305.09 -$548.25

OH 45.31% 6.6% $823.32 $2,402.85 $111,626.54 $460.22 $46.48 $103.49 -$221.70

OK 44.59% 6.9% $785.70 $2,385.72 $107,620.00 $453.09 $43.85 $89.40 -$214.35

OR 46.62% 6.4% $1,328.63 $3,461.79 $207,159.08 $786.35 $91.68 $201.68 -$311.43

PA 45.17% 6.6% $1,093.02 $3,211.21 $153,279.16 $606.62 $65.18 $134.59 -$285.88

RI 47.57% 6.4% $1,367.68 $3,655.89 $197,403.12 $736.31 $87.73 $201.89 -$376.26

SC 46.65% 6.6% $967.16 $2,513.33 $137,769.38 $561.63 $58.48 $123.19 -$243.94

SD 44.16% 6.4% $929.37 $2,716.20 $136,243.17 $528.07 $56.77 $126.71 -$213.35

TN 46.88% 6.9% $884.80 $2,324.35 $119,978.09 $500.68 $49.49 $103.71 -$248.46

TX 43.14% 7.0% $864.81 $2,971.34 $119,614.14 $501.94 $49.88 $102.53 -$237.31

UT 47.36% 6.5% $1,368.97 $3,291.17 $211,600.04 $817.19 $93.54 $211.04 -$306.01

VA 46.55% 6.4% $1,592.48 $4,060.34 $248,616.17 $926.33 $109.04 $243.22 -$332.59

VT 45.99% 6.8% $1,132.75 $3,120.00 $167,344.38 $634.16 $72.27 $157.18 -$292.74

WA 46.41% 6.4% $1,516.96 $3,979.40 $241,785.98 $891.54 $107.29 $233.62 -$335.92

WI 45.00% 6.5% $988.22 $3,000.00 $139,000.00 $549.52 $59.63 $128.36 -$266.20

WV 46.50% 6.6% $1,082.19 $2,681.34 $155,013.29 $633.96 $63.88 $126.95 -$253.61

WY 46.15% 6.5% $1,305.74 $3,228.23 $188,091.80 $800.36 $80.57 $166.65 -$293.64

PR 50.79% 6.4% $772.75 $1,654.43 $103,243.90 $447.07 $44.09 $95.60 -$212.26

Nationwide* 47.24% 6.4% $1,446.21 $3,800.77 $214,711.17 $800.25 $94.55 $211.08 -$347.34

* Includes U.S. Territories
34

# 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days

2009Q3 3,583 10.7% 4.5% 4,415 15.8% 10.6% 4,634 25.9% 21.3% 4,965 32.3% 29.0%

2009Q4 43,655 5.7% 1.9% 47,492 10.2% 6.3% 51,389 20.4% 15.8% 54,574 25.4% 22.4%

2010Q1 123,902 4.3% 1.5% 150,196 10.4% 6.1% 161,100 20.4% 16.1% 166,131 26.0% 22.4%

2010Q2 147,557 5.3% 1.8% 157,177 12.3% 7.5% 173,450 19.5% 16.1% 170,638 27.8% 24.1%

2010Q3 86,207 5.1% 1.9% 95,904 11.1% 7.1% 104,183 18.2% 14.5% 106,149 25.3% 21.9%

2010Q4 58,028 4.6% 1.8% 62,507 8.9% 5.7% 65,131 18.4% 14.5% 66,686 24.0% 21.1%

2011Q1 70,834 2.9% 1.0% 75,848 8.2% 5.1% 79,566 17.0% 13.6% 81,143 22.2% 19.2%

2011Q2 79,818 3.7% 1.3% 89,074 9.4% 5.8% 92,553 16.2% 13.2% 91,826 23.1% 20.1%

2011Q3 80,821 3.7% 1.3% 85,885 8.8% 5.6% 86,849 15.6% 12.3% 86,589 21.8% 18.9%

2011Q4 64,870 3.4% 1.2% 67,390 6.9% 4.4% 67,714 14.7% 11.4% 67,863 19.3% 16.8%

2012Q1 49,351 2.5% 0.9% 50,795 6.8% 4.1% 50,821 14.1% 10.9% 50,214 18.5% 15.8%

2012Q2 43,956 3.0% 1.0% 44,936 7.7% 4.6% 45,214 13.6% 10.9% 44,733 18.9% 16.1%

2012Q3 47,262 3.1% 1.0% 48,939 7.3% 4.6% 49,673 13.0% 10.1% 50,204 17.9% 15.1%

2012Q4 39,267 3.2% 1.0% 41,182 6.3% 3.9% 42,400 12.3% 9.4% 42,668 16.3% 14.0%

2013Q1 39,222 2.2% 0.7% 40,875 6.1% 3.5% 42,002 12.6% 9.6% 42,382 16.6% 13.9%

2013Q2 31,525 2.6% 0.8% 32,996 6.5% 3.9% 33,686 11.7% 9.3% 33,951 16.4% 14.0%

2013Q3 31,935 2.9% 1.0% 33,406 7.0% 4.2% 34,802 12.1% 9.2% 34,602 16.4% 13.9%

2013Q4 27,285 2.9% 1.0% 28,608 6.3% 3.8% 29,889 12.2% 9.5% 10,171 16.4% 14.0%

2014Q1 23,674 2.5% 0.9% 25,560 6.8% 3.9% 26,397 13.1% 10.2%

2014Q2 19,018 3.7% 1.1% 19,830 7.8% 5.1% 7,469 13.4% 11.0%

2014Q3 17,012 3.5% 1.3% 17,832 7.9% 5.2%

2014Q4 15,148 3.8% 1.4% 5,456 7.3% 4.5%

2015Q1 4,796 3.1% 1.0%

All 1,148,726 3.9% 1.3% 1,226,303 9.0% 5.5% 1,248,922 16.6% 13.2% 1,205,489 22.7% 19.6%

# 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days # 60+ Days 90+ Days

2009Q3 5,068 36.9% 33.6% 5,167 44.0% 41.8% 5,073 50.2% 48.6% 5,061 54.1% 52.6%

2009Q4 55,528 31.6% 28.4% 56,351 39.7% 37.2% 56,124 44.9% 43.1% 55,380 48.9% 47.5%

2010Q1 167,926 31.9% 28.7% 166,208 39.7% 37.5% 165,997 44.6% 42.9% 163,605 48.4% 47.2%

2010Q2 178,764 31.1% 28.7% 174,991 39.2% 37.4% 174,351 43.7% 42.5% 56,833 49.4% 48.4%

2010Q3 106,201 29.5% 26.8% 104,469 37.1% 35.2% 105,091 41.2% 39.8%

2010Q4 66,447 29.6% 26.5% 65,951 36.3% 34.2% 65,980 40.4% 38.8%

2011Q1 80,788 27.6% 24.9% 80,935 33.8% 31.9% 80,477 37.9% 36.5%

2011Q2 91,403 27.3% 25.1% 91,484 33.2% 31.6% 33,729 37.4% 36.3%

2011Q3 85,066 25.8% 23.4% 86,816 31.0% 29.2%

2011Q4 67,594 23.4% 21.0% 67,697 28.5% 26.8%

2012Q1 50,720 22.5% 20.0% 50,262 27.9% 25.9%

2012Q2 44,939 22.0% 20.0% 15,543 27.7% 26.1%

2012Q3 50,470 20.9% 18.6%

2012Q4 42,794 19.9% 17.6%

2013Q1 42,160 19.9% 17.7%

2013Q2 11,326 19.7% 18.1%

2013Q3

2013Q4

2014Q1

2014Q2

2014Q3

2014Q4

2015Q1

All 1,147,194 27.5% 24.9% 965,874 35.7% 33.7% 686,822 42.4% 40.9% 280,879 48.8% 47.6%

Loan payment status is not reported by servicers after program disqualification (90+ days delinquent). Therefore, 90+ days delinquent loans are included in each of the 60+ and 90+ 

days delinquent metrics for all future reporting periods, even though some loans may have cured or paid off following program disqualification. In addition, once a loan is reported 

as paid off it is no longer reflected in future periods. 

Appendix 6: Performance of HAMP Tier 1 Modifications by Vintage

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

24 36 48 60

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18
35

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 68 $195.44 33%

Aguadilla-Isabela, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 188 $253.80 36%

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,550 $299.46 36%

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 313 $242.64 30%

Albany, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 230 $352.68 34%

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,761 $359.46 34%

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,360 $336.46 33%

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 166 $243.54 29%

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,172 $402.46 34%

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 144 $216.59 31%

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 139 $261.93 37%

Ames, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 64 $278.51 33%

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 543 $514.04 33%

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 114 $180.26 27%

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 208 $214.23 26%

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,187 $420.75 36%

Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 181 $207.77 28%

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 368 $307.75 34%

Arecibo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 143 $268.02 37%

Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,313 $351.05 33%

Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 554 $307.14 33%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 42,984 $378.15 37%

Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,422 $495.51 38%

Auburn-Opelika, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 255 $283.75 29%

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 990 $260.23 33%

Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,816 $331.38 33%

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,098 $476.54 37%

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 16,322 $474.00 32%

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 375 $309.77 34%

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,821 $613.23 36%

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,340 $261.63 31%

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 438 $266.77 38%

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 276 $226.46 34%

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 331 $221.94 33%

Beckley, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 62 $223.46 35%

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 616 $478.62 34%

Bend-Redmond, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,252 $530.19 37%

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $291.67 27%

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 261 $248.32 35%

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,604 $281.04 32%

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area 51 $339.62 34%

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 174 $302.78 30%

Bloomington, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 149 $359.43 42%

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 216 $266.65 31%

Bloomington-Normal, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 68 $202.45 24%

Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 43 $246.02 38%

Boise City, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,986 $382.71 34%

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 24,883 $627.63 36%

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 638 $478.40 34%

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 174 $243.98 34%

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 968 $471.87 31%

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,475 $711.03 40%

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 538 $234.38 35%

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 257 $329.88 33%

Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,593 $259.23 34%

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 418 $262.29 32%

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area 435 $419.47 35%

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA
36

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

California-Lexington Park, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 328 $560.15 32%

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,269 $263.68 34%

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,115 $476.01 40%

Cape Girardeau, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 112 $231.56 31%

Carbondale-Marion, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 54 $266.90 44%

Carson City, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 403 $525.93 37%

Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 130 $340.47 29%

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 340 $252.35 32%

Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 248 $345.84 31%

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 206 $246.38 30%

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 167 $221.52 32%

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,072 $353.68 33%

Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,841 $316.36 33%

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 618 $391.29 31%

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,404 $276.66 34%

Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 145 $275.18 27%

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 75,704 $516.79 41%

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,135 $459.66 34%

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,056 $308.68 35%

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 258 $226.50 31%

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 232 $258.52 32%

Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,430 $307.02 37%

Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 658 $414.03 33%

College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 131 $220.10 27%

Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,059 $391.46 33%

Columbia, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 168 $243.79 32%

Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,539 $268.23 32%

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 732 $268.89 33%

Columbus, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 122 $219.48 31%

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,410 $321.92 36%

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 374 $247.71 32%

Corvallis, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 108 $347.65 26%

Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 850 $421.82 36%

Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 140 $246.68 32%

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 15,036 $299.36 33%

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 498 $262.84 35%

Danville, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 55 $200.04 38%

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 53 $172.03 23%

Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 387 $356.17 35%

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 567 $241.73 35%

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,065 $262.92 35%

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 183 $228.18 28%

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 91 $206.29 35%

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,681 $393.73 38%

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,969 $407.88 33%

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,448 $271.98 31%

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 24,998 $376.74 38%

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 187 $214.12 30%

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 903 $401.68 30%

Dubuque, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 108 $253.24 34%

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 682 $283.75 33%

Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,356 $322.94 34%

East Stroudsburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,169 $497.01 41%

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 242 $291.60 32%

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,489 $439.95 35%

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,311 $247.94 33%
37

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 137 $238.72 30%

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 606 $255.32 33%

Elmira, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 109 $270.88 40%

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 377 $239.67 38%

Eugene, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,162 $394.06 33%

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 430 $209.02 31%

Fairbanks, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 65 $339.78 23%

Fajardo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 15 $208.03 27%

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 181 $275.83 30%

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 119 $289.47 26%

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 635 $237.57 33%

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,210 $287.11 34%

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 327 $530.03 34%

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,791 $324.13 37%

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 489 $222.66 31%

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 152 $212.00 33%

Fond du Lac, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 167 $292.57 33%

Fort Collins, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 859 $408.09 31%

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 245 $215.61 30%

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 867 $242.13 35%

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,734 $481.10 37%

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 170 $233.42 32%

Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 694 $335.57 35%

Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,137 $331.28 36%

Gettysburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 246 $443.17 36%

Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 340 $329.53 36%

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 165 $240.86 33%

Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 61 $228.97 30%

Grand Island, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 34 $230.84 32%

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 564 $417.20 33%

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,994 $286.94 34%

Grants Pass, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 319 $537.05 40%

Great Falls, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 77 $261.72 29%

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,098 $358.67 30%

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 587 $346.76 38%

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,519 $284.52 33%

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 355 $274.11 33%

Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,172 $265.16 32%

Guayama, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 41 $183.65 34%

Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 730 $276.77 35%

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,621 $427.52 32%

Hammond, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 212 $301.89 35%

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 910 $425.30 34%

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,099 $314.42 33%

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 250 $406.17 34%

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,574 $453.98 36%

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 233 $238.40 31%

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,039 $243.83 31%

Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 577 $521.24 42%

Hinesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 121 $252.85 33%

Holland-Grand Haven, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 238 $256.51 27%

Homosassa Springs, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 425 $364.45 42%

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 788 $640.33 26%

Hot Springs, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 145 $317.48 35%

Houma-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 262 $246.28 31%
38

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 16,138 $286.48 34%

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 302 $235.12 34%

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 621 $235.39 30%

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 294 $260.89 25%

Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,386 $275.49 32%

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 106 $312.17 32%

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 51 $343.54 34%

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 623 $285.40 35%

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,679 $250.02 32%

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 295 $239.79 34%

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,962 $371.31 35%

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 166 $256.81 27%

Janesville-Beloit, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 579 $264.18 34%

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 154 $212.54 30%

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 253 $255.86 32%

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 102 $199.81 29%

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 77 $242.10 32%

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 231 $198.91 31%

Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 876 $1,072.95 40%

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 850 $306.93 37%

Kankakee, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 431 $352.79 37%

Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,817 $312.08 34%

Kennewick-Richland, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 356 $269.23 31%

Killeen-Temple, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 268 $219.78 30%

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 352 $239.12 33%

Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 952 $502.11 38%

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,753 $264.36 31%

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 228 $220.55 32%

La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 148 $263.75 29%

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 81 $207.52 25%

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 573 $241.73 30%

Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 170 $280.30 37%

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 265 $230.23 31%

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,274 $408.52 36%

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,454 $369.12 36%

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,085 $306.75 30%

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,521 $314.82 36%

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 508 $287.22 36%

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 346 $326.08 30%

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,410 $528.31 38%

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 157 $319.87 32%

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 98 $214.03 33%

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 259 $297.23 30%

Lewiston, ID-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 96 $259.64 26%

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 328 $332.90 34%

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 808 $297.53 34%

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 203 $248.49 39%

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 365 $265.02 32%

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,119 $243.52 31%

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 208 $319.71 28%

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 136 $224.90 32%

Longview, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 414 $380.38 33%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 82,789 $850.57 40%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 23,630 $677.11 31%

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,163 $265.13 33%

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 170 $228.84 31%

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 447 $250.51 28%
39

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 850 $277.80 36%

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,665 $510.56 38%

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,203 $396.12 34%

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,133 $477.05 33%

Manhattan, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 62 $330.37 31%

Mankato-North Mankato, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 151 $303.73 30%

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 304 $237.93 34%

Mayaguez, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 82 $229.26 38%

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,185 $252.02 34%

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,219 $463.84 35%

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,114 $296.40 36%

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,438 $531.74 38%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 77,425 $544.80 42%

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 340 $252.26 33%

Midland, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 97 $296.96 41%

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 67 $255.60 29%

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,793 $358.14 37%

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 18,406 $450.36 36%

Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 246 $410.55 31%

Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,195 $258.48 35%

Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,621 $566.70 37%

Monroe, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 217 $213.17 27%

Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 743 $355.06 35%

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 817 $232.14 29%

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 48 $379.46 38%

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 264 $259.68 32%

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 482 $506.12 36%

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 176 $202.82 31%

Muskegon, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 602 $243.80 36%

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,747 $389.16 37%

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,118 $834.29 36%

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,437 $615.75 42%

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,039 $311.58 32%

New Bern, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 114 $348.31 42%

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,477 $476.72 36%

New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,212 $333.21 35%

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 105,134 $809.95 40%

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 477 $274.63 34%

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,264 $475.41 40%

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,398 $484.61 37%

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,445 $361.74 37%

Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 567 $470.40 33%

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 53 $203.44 29%

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,797 $360.54 28%

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,798 $258.07 33%

Olympia-Tumwater, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,033 $439.00 32%

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,730 $272.75 33%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,390 $458.60 39%

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 273 $278.16 35%

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 115 $198.01 32%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,414 $841.32 36%

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,489 $400.90 38%

Palm Coast, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 365 $335.61 28%

Panama City, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 631 $387.33 36%

Parkersburg-Vienna, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 101 $185.44 30%

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $215.69 26%
40

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,635 $307.19 34%

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 440 $222.57 33%

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 27,620 $400.68 33%

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 42,418 $459.52 37%

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 78 $248.85 37%

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,150 $266.30 34%

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 235 $330.17 33%

Pocatello, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 162 $255.23 31%

Ponce, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 182 $241.35 39%

Port St. Lucie, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,146 $461.01 39%

Portland-South Portland, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,496 $444.82 35%

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,101 $481.00 34%

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,636 $497.21 31%

Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,330 $443.65 36%

Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,788 $537.78 38%

Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,535 $461.12 32%

Pueblo, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 590 $264.67 33%

Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,230 $444.90 41%

Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 739 $354.54 36%

Raleigh, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,484 $340.84 32%

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 149 $322.11 34%

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,345 $337.49 32%

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,114 $447.91 34%

Reno, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,939 $524.82 36%

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,642 $370.25 32%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 66,710 $639.55 37%

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 733 $273.47 31%

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 409 $324.64 33%

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,635 $265.05 36%

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,395 $324.76 38%

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 371 $247.44 34%

Rome, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 178 $237.50 31%

Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 22,519 $611.89 36%

Saginaw, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 449 $260.87 36%

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,615 $384.61 34%

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,388 $875.40 40%

Salisbury, MD-DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,379 $426.99 35%

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,700 $422.99 33%

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 51 $168.26 24%

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,298 $254.06 32%

San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 23,863 $764.84 36%

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 29,049 $875.23 38%

San German, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 79 $241.57 34%

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,282 $966.10 37%

San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,666 $301.07 38%

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,538 $772.71 36%

Sandusky, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 71 $217.31 27%

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 564 $592.46 30%

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,489 $982.61 38%

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 611 $517.55 35%

Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,045 $775.78 40%

Santa Rosa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,012 $808.98 37%

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,281 $323.27 34%

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,365 $284.21 35%

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 19,999 $561.91 34%

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,121 $405.49 38%
41

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Sebring, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 317 $411.23 44%

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 211 $271.74 31%

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 163 $229.60 31%

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 771 $238.79 31%

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 188 $327.92 34%

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 187 $236.22 35%

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 243 $223.23 25%

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 978 $252.55 35%

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 859 $245.96 31%

Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,577 $327.41 32%

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 187 $244.10 36%

Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,677 $366.25 34%

Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 754 $263.15 33%

Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 334 $257.65 38%

St. Cloud, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 486 $325.46 32%

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,042 $538.21 37%

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 184 $252.74 36%

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,829 $301.91 35%

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 137 $367.85 35%

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 165 $379.80 36%

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV MSA 49 $136.29 22%

Stockton-Lodi, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,372 $651.93 38%

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 203 $244.96 35%

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 771 $256.99 34%

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,269 $331.55 31%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 22,171 $407.61 38%

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 175 $222.88 37%

Texarkana, TX-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 92 $201.02 29%

The Villages, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 152 $421.65 42%

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,139 $258.53 35%

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 280 $221.76 28%

Trenton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,635 $491.55 37%

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,983 $366.68 35%

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,442 $247.78 32%

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 343 $286.97 31%

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 221 $310.60 35%

Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,953 $819.09 34%

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 351 $250.76 35%

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 196 $283.88 32%

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,338 $732.32 36%

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 41 $251.86 35%

Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 706 $362.49 35%

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,964 $393.86 32%

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,803 $424.52 36%
42

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 183 $195.08 30%

Walla Walla, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 76 $353.41 35%

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 314 $276.77 33%

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 47,736 $641.63 35%

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 210 $206.75 32%

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 43 $256.17 36%

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 191 $301.80 36%

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 90 $241.63 37%

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 291 $363.29 30%

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 120 $187.44 32%

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 62 $185.57 33%

Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 784 $238.26 33%

Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 153 $210.76 30%

Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,122 $379.50 34%

Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 808 $454.81 31%

Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,753 $271.65 33%

Worcester, MA-CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,498 $507.60 37%

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 411 $279.67 32%

Yauco, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 5 $188.51 29%

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,660 $367.37 32%

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,295 $255.61 36%

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,425 $499.94 36%

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,186 $338.52 35%