Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT 

THROUGH THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2016
More than 2.8 Million Homeowner Assistance Actions have taken place under 

Making Home Affordable (MHA) programs

2

MHA AT-A-GLANCE

1MP

Q4: 77.2K*

PTD: 2.2M

See Page 6

FOURTH QUARTER 2016 SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS

2MP

Q4: 1.7K

 PTD: 163K

See Page 15

HAFA

Q4: 10.3K

PTD: 454K

See Page 16

UP

Q4: 0.2K

PTD: 46K

See Page 17

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 FOURTH QUARTER OF 2016

(Months of October, November, and December)

See page 19 for additional information and detailed results for this quarter.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, signed into law on December 18, 2015, provided that the 

MHA Program would terminate on December 31, 2016, except with respect to certain loan 

modification applications made before such date. While activity to assist struggling homeowners will 

continue in the years to come, a look back at the progress made in the housing crisis recovery and 

MHA’s contribution to this effort is included on page 4.

* The 1MP modifications activity reflects a data correction reported in the current quarter. See Page 6 for more details.
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Note: For more information and quarterly updates about HHF, please visit the program website 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

PROGRAM UPDATES:

MHA and the Housing Market Overview 4

Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) Updates 5

MHA Updates 6

HAMP PROGRAM RESULTS:

HAMP Summary 7

HAMP Application Outcomes 7

HAMP Modification Characteristics 8

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 9

Performance of Permanent HAMP Modifications 10-11

Homeowners with Disqualified Modifications 11

Drivers of HAMP Performance 12

OTHER MHA PROGRAMS:

Post-Modification Counseling 13

Principal Reduction Alternative 14

2MP Program 15

HAFA Program 16

Unemployment Program 17

RESULTS BY SERVICER:

MHA Program Activity by Servicer and Investor 18

Servicer Assessment Results 19-25

APPENDIX:

Program and Servicer Assessment Notes A-1

Compliance Criteria Tested A-2

Terms and Methodologies A-3

End Notes A-4

HAMP Activity by State A-5

HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State A-6

HAMP Performance Data by Vintage A-7

HAMP Activity by MSA A-8
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Housing Market Recovery1

MHA established standards for affordable and sustainable foreclosure prevention solutions and customer service 

relationships between mortgage servicers and homeowners. Over time, the MHA program grew and evolved to 

address new challenges and reach more homeowners with a focus on five guiding principles:

MHA Has Helped Millions of Homeowners and Changed the Mortgage Servicing Industry 

Approximately 10 million homeowners have received help through government programs and additional private 

sector efforts.

Foreclosure Starts

250.6K

↓

59.7K

Number of foreclosures 

initiated

Accessibility – ensuring that homeowners experiencing a wide variety of hardships can understand, participate 

in, and be eligible for foreclosure alternative programs.

Affordability – providing meaningful payment relief to achieve sustainable monthly payments that meet the 

needs of the homeowner based on their particular type of hardship. 

Sustainability – offering solutions designed to resolve delinquency and be effective long-term.

Transparency – ensuring that the loss mitigation process is clear and understandable by all parties, with Q&As 

available online.

Accountability – ensuring the appropriate level of oversight of the mortgage assistance process.

Delinquency

6.1M

↓

2.7M

Number of homeowners 

30+ days delinquent

Negative Equity

10.2M

↓

3.2M

Number of homeowners 

underwater

2009

↓

2016

Since the start of the financial crisis, the housing market has made significant progress in recovering.

Total estimated savings 

to date in monthly 

mortgage payments 

through HAMP

$48

BILLION

In principal reduction 

through HAMP

$24

BILLION

In debt relief through 

HAFA

$30

BILLION

Homeowner assistance 

actions through MHA

2.8

MILLION

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Proprietary Modifications FHA Loss Mitigation HAMP Permanent Modifications

Millions

Note: Data does not include GSE SAI, GSE Streamline, or other GSE modifications.
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

5

The Hardest Hit Fund Program (HHF) currently provides $9.6 billion to 18 states and the District of Columbia to develop 

locally tailored programs to assist struggling homeowners in their communities. 

Unlike the MHA programs which are national in scope, the HHF sought to address state-by-state differences in the housing 

crisis. Treasury designed HHF to capitalize on Housing Finance Agencies’ (HFAs) on-the-ground understanding of the 

conditions in their communities to create programs they determine will most effectively help prevent foreclosures and 

stabilize housing markets.

For further information on the Hardest Hit Fund, please visit the program website.

Hardest Hit Fund Program Update

How Do Hardest Hit Fund Programs Interact with MHA?

• State HFAs design and administer HHF programs that interact with MHA. 

• Treasury provides guidance to servicers regarding MHA – HHF interactions. 

• HHF funds may be used to facilitate a HAMP modification in states where principal reduction is offered.

• HFAs work with housing counseling agencies and servicers to help homeowners find a solution that meets their 

needs, including assistance through MHA and HHF programs.

12.0K

 65.5K

 24.5K

 7.6K

 33.3K

 19.5K

8.7K

24.5K

9.6K

7.4K

4.1K

5.3K 8.7K

11.8K

5.4K

34.0K

6.3K

DC:

0.7K

3.3K

Key:

-Unique Applicants Assisted

HHF States Have Assisted More Than 292,000 Homeowners

(Program activity through December 31, 2016)

Source: Q4 2016 HHF Quarterly Performance Reports
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Program-to-Date Q4 2016 Q3 2016

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started3 2,158,711 77,154 44,918 

HAMP Tier 1 1,458,523 8,316 8,912 

HAMP Tier 2 197,029 11,035 13,364 

Streamline HAMP 27,560 9,439 10,310 

GSE Standard Modifications (SAI) 343,993 43,711* 6,948 

Treasury FHA and RD HAMP 131,606 4,653 5,384 

2MP Modifications Started 163,140 1,696 2,334 

HAFA Transactions Completed 453,602 10,262 13,174 

UP Forbearance Plans Started 46,485 234 125

Cumulative Activity 2,821,938 89,346 60,551

MHA Program Updates

6 * The GSE SAI modification activity reflects a data correction reported in the current quarter.

** BKFS Mortgage Monitor Report.

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016

Delinquent Loans

(Millions)

Permanent Modifications

(Thousands)

Quarterly Trending of MHA Permanent Modifications Started 

& Number of Loans 60+ Days Delinquent**

HAMP TIER 1 NON-GSE HAMP TIER 1 GSE HAMP TIER 2 STREAMLINE HAMP

GSE SAI FHA/RD-HAMP 60+ Days DLQ

• Many of the permanent modifications started in the fourth quarter were Streamline HAMP modifications. 

Preliminary data indicate that more than a third of all Streamline HAMP trial modifications were not previously 

evaluated for HAMP. 

• Treasury published another installment of the ongoing Key Findings and Lessons Learned Series: “Customer Care.” 

The presentation focuses on how MHA sought to make the homeowner’s experience as transparent and predictable 

as possible. Click here to download the presentation.

• The MHA Servicer Assessment results for the fourth quarter of 2016 begin on page 19. Five servicers were rated as 

needing minor improvement, one was rated as needing moderate improvement, and one was rated as needing 

substantial improvement. All servicers met or approached Treasury’s benchmark on six of eight metrics: assignment 

of a single point of contact, accuracy of eligibility decisions, timely evaluation of HAMP applications, using and 

reporting accurate data to calculate incentives, accurate processing of interest rate step-up changes, and issuance 

of interest rate step-up notices. However, some servicers still need to improve in the areas of proper identification 

and reporting of disqualified modifications and accurate income calculation.

MHA Program Activity2,3
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

HAMP Summary

Trial

Modifications

All Trials Started4 2,511,344

 Tier 1 2,232,547

 Tier 2 225,607

 Streamline HAMP 53,190

Active Trials 37,680

Trial Modifications Cancelled Since Verified Income Requirement* 115,784

Permanent 

Modifications

All Permanent Modifications Started 1,683,112

Permanent Modifications Disqualified (Cumulative)** 577,266

Active Permanent Modifications 962,209

7

* When Treasury launched HAMP in the spring of 2009, 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. A total of 674,768 trials started before June 2010 have been cancelled. A cumulative 790,552 trials have been cancelled

 program-to-date. 

** Does not include 134,378 loans paid off and 9,259 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.

• 23% were referred to foreclosure.

Outcome for Homeowners Who Did Not Receive a HAMP Modification

3%

2%

36%

22%

14%

3%

21%

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 servicers5

2%
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Select HAMP Modification Characteristics*

8

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

more than $48 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, as well as a streamlined modification process introduced in January 2016:

• Under HAMP Tier 1, servicers apply the modification steps in sequence until the homeowner’s post-modification 

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.

• Under Streamline HAMP, seriously delinquent homeowners who have not been able to complete a HAMP 

application may be eligible to receive mortgage assistance through a combination of modification steps similar to 

HAMP Tier 2. Unlike Tier 1 and Tier 2, Streamline HAMP does not require that borrowers document their income.

Select Median Permanent Modification Characteristics 

Loan 

Characteristic

Before 

Modification

After 

Modification

Median 

Decrease

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 43.8% 31.0% -13.4 pct pts

 Tier 2 28.2% 21.1% -6.7 pct pts

 Combined 42.7% 31.0% -12.2 pct pts

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 67.1% 50.1% -13.7 pct pts

 Tier 2 44.6% 37.1% -6.7 pct pts

 Combined 64.4% 48.3% -12.5 pct pts

Monthly Housing Payment**

 Tier 1 $1,379.69 $812.26 ($498.40)

 Tier 2 $1,028.98 $660.97 ($333.59)

 Streamline $904.57 $559.55 ($318.85)

 All $1,332.83 $792.00 ($470.24)

Modification Steps for Permanent Modifications

Modification Step Tier 1 Tier 2 Streamline All

Interest Rate 

Reduction 95.7% 70.2% 83.0% 92.5%

Term Extension 60.3% 87.4% 98.2% 64.1%

Principal 

Forbearance 31.3% 31.6% 23.2% 31.2%

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:

• 29% were previously in another HAMP trial or 

permanent modification.

• 10% were previously evaluated for HAMP and did 

not meet eligibility requirements.

• 6% were non-owner-occupied properties. 

Characteristic Tier 1 Tier 2 Streamline All

Median 

Monthly Gross 

Income

$3,913 $4,997 N/A $4,011 

Median Credit 

Score 566 561 580 565

Median 

Property Value $178,012 $158,000 $159,600 $175,000 

Additional HAMP Tier 2 Characteristics

Homeowner Characteristics

*HAMP modification characteristics reflect data at the date 

of modification. 

**Excludes the impact of any interest rate increases and reamortization of capitalized homeowner incentives which 

may begin to occur after the fifth year of the HAMP Tier 1 

modification.
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 

* As of December 2016. Assumes no future re-defaults of HAMP Tier 1 modifications. 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Q3 2014Q4 2014Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017Q4 2017Q1 2018Q2 2018Q3 2018Q4 2018Q1 2019Q2 2019Q3 2019Q4 2019Q1 2020Q2 2020Q3 2020Q4 2020Q1 2021Q2 2021Q3 2021Q4 2021Q1 2022

Number of Loans

Number of Interest Rate Increases by Quarter*

First Increase Second Increase Third Increase Fourth Increase

9 See Appendix 6 for additional information on HAMP Tier 1 interest rate increases by state.

The HAMP Tier 1 modification was designed to reduce a homeowner’s monthly mortgage payment to an affordable level, 

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. The 

interest rate is reduced in increments to achieve the target 31% DTI with an interest rate floor of 2%. 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 3.65% in 2016), at which time the interest rate will be fixed 

for the remaining loan term.

HAMP Tier 1 Interest Rate Increases 

• Approximately 80% of HAMP Tier 1 homeowners will experience an interest rate increase after five years.

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

o The median amount of the first monthly payment increase is $93, and the median monthly payment increase 

after the final interest rate increase is $206.

• Through December 2016, more than 460,000 homeowners have experienced one interest rate step-up, and 

approximately 266,000 have experienced a second rate step-up. 

o Based on reported data, the rate increase does not appear to have an impact on the performance of these 

modifications. The percentage of modifications disqualifying in the month following the reset remains consistent 

with the months leading up to the reset, at less than or equal to 1%. 

• To help mitigate the impact of interest rate step-ups, servicers can offer borrowers the opportunity to recast their 

HAMP modifications upon reaching their sixth-year anniversary. To date, approximately 37,700 loans have been recast, 

89% of which experienced an interest rate step-up. Monthly payments for recast loans have been reduced by a median 

of $56.
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Performance of HAMP Permanent Modifications 

HAMP Tier 1

# Months 

Post 

Modification 

% of Disqualified HAMP Tier 1 Modifications6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3 

2016

Q4

2016 ALL

3 2.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 1.2% 1.3% 0.9% 1.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3%

6 6.7% 6.7% 5.3% 4.3% 3.8% 4.7% 5.2% 4.9% 5.6% 6.4% 5.5%

12 16.3% 15.6% 12.7% 10.3% 9.4% 10.6% 11.7% 12.6% 13.1%

18 22.9% 22.7% 18.9% 15.3% 14.0% 15.1% 16.4% 19.2%

24 28.8% 28.1% 23.8% 19.1% 17.3% 18.6% 20.2% 24.0%

30 33.3% 32.6% 27.3% 22.1% 19.8% 20.9% 27.9%

36 37.5% 36.6% 30.1% 24.6% 22.0% 22.3% 31.4%

42 41.1% 39.4% 32.5% 26.7% 24.3% 34.4%

48 43.6% 41.6% 34.6% 28.6% 26.1% 37.3%

54 46.0% 43.6% 36.5% 31.5% 40.2%

60 47.9% 45.6% 38.4% 33.9% 43.0%

Differences in modification characteristics contribute to differences in the performance of HAMP modifications. Those 

characteristics can also affect the performance of certain vintages and contribute to differences in performance between 

HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2.

The tables below show the performance of HAMP permanent modifications at various seasoning points for those 

modifications that have aged to, or past, the number of months noted. It is important to note that far fewer loans have 

reached these seasoning points for HAMP Tier 2, which was introduced several years after HAMP Tier 1. HAMP Tier 2 

# Months 

Post 

Modification 

% of Disqualified HAMP Tier 2 Modifications6

2012 2013 2014 2015 Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3 

2016

Q4

2016 ALL

3

N/A

1.3% 1.8% 1.6% 1.7% 1.2% 1.4% 1.8% 1.4% 1.7%

6 5.4% 7.7% 7.0% 7.9% 6.4% 7.7% 8.2% 7.5%

12 17.4% 17.2% 16.1% 17.5% 17.0% 17.0%

18 23.3% 24.4% 22.6% 24.5% 23.7%

24 28.8% 28.8% 27.5% 28.9% 28.2%

30 32.2% 32.3% 31.0% 31.7%

36 34.6% 34.8% 34.7% 34.8%

42 37.8% 37.1% 37.2%

See Appendix 7 for additional information on HAMP performance by vintage. 10

HAMP Tier 1 Performance by Investor

Modifications of private label security loans have the 

highest delinquency rates, followed by modifications of 

portfolio loans and GSE loans. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

GSE Portfolio Private

HAMP Tier 2 Performance by Prior Modification History

Modifications that were previously modified under HAMP 

Tier 1 have a higher likelihood of disqualifying from the 

subsequent Tier 2 modification. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

With Prior Tier 1 Modification

Without Prior Tier 1 Modification
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Homeowners with Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications

11

7% 4%

17%

33%

14%

5%

20%

Status of Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications 

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

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 actions. 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 26% have been referred to foreclosure. 

Source: Survey data from large servicers5

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 6 that disqualified by month 9.

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.

Incremental Performance of HAMP Modifications over Time

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

3-Month Re-default Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

Conditional Re-default Rate for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Modifications by Modification Year

(% of Active Loans)
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

The most significant factor driving HAMP modification performance is the amount of the reduction in the monthly 

mortgage payment, followed by the length of the homeowner’s delinquency at the start of the trial modification and the 

homeowner’s credit score at the time of modification. 

Performance by Monthly Payment Reduction

Payment reduction is strongly correlated with permanent modification sustainability. For modifications seasoned 24 

months, fewer than 15% of modifications with a monthly payment reduction greater than 50% have been disqualified due 

to missing three payments, compared to a disqualification rate of nearly 38% where the payment had been cut by 20% or 

less.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

<=20% 20%-30% 30%-40% 40%-50% >50%

Drivers of Performance for HAMP Tier 1 and HAMP Tier 2 Modifications

12

Performance by Credit Score at the Time of Modification Performance by Delinquency at Trial Start

Homeowners who were 31 to 90 days delinquent at the 

start of the HAMP trial period experienced a 21% redefault rate in the subsequent 24 months, compared to 

28% for homeowners whose delinquency was between 

121 and 210 days at trial start.

Homeowners with credit scores between 580-619 at the 

time of modification experienced a 20% re-default rate in 

the subsequent 24 months, compared to a rate of 10% 

for homeowners whose credit scores were above 660.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

<= 30 Days 31 - 90 Days

91 - 120 Days 121 - 210 Days

> 210 Days

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

< 580 580 - 619 620 - 660 > 660
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Post-Modification Counseling

Counseling Referral Activity by Servicer

Note: Data on Post-Modification Counseling is collected from sixteen servicers via survey. Servicer take-up rates will vary due to timing of referrals 

and individual servicer program design. Borrower performance data is limited by servicer program design.

% of Referrals 

Who Take Up 

Counseling

4% 9% 16% 2% 6% 8% 9% 8%

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

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

Servicers

At-Risk New Trials

Since March 2014, Treasury has required certain HAMP participating servicers to offer free financial counseling to homeowners 

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

determined to be at risk of re-default. The counseling is designed to help homeowners stay in their 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 December 2016, participating servicers have made more than 563,000 referrals to financial counseling. Of these:

• 52% are permanent modifications considered by the servicers to be at risk of disqualifying from HAMP, and 48% 

are new trial modifications.

• Nearly 41,000 referrals started financial counseling resulting in an overall take-up rate of 7.3%.

13

Borrowers in a new HAMP trial modification who participate in financial counseling at the start of their trial modification 

perform better following counseling than borrowers who do not participate. For example, 12 months after counseling, 

fewer than 11% of borrowers who participated in counseling disqualified from their HAMP modification, compared to 14% 

for those who did not.

Performance of Borrowers Who Participated in Counseling

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12 Month 15 Month 18 Month 21 Month 24

Participated in Counseling Did Not Participate in Counseling

90+ Day Delinquency Rate
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Q4 2010Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3 2011Q4 2011Q1 2012Q2 2012Q3 2012Q4 2012Q1 2013Q2 2013Q3 2013Q4 2013Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2014Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016Q4 2016

Trials Started with Principal Reduction as 

a % of Eligible Loans 

PRA All Principal Reduction

64%

61%

66%

64%

69%

63%

66%

56%

76%

59%

61%

42% 60%

28%

HAMP Modifications 

with Earned Principal 

Reduction Under 

PRA7

HAMP Modifications 

with Upfront 

Principal Reduction 

Outside of PRA

Total HAMP 

Modifications with 

Principal 

Reduction

All Permanent Modifications Started 235,581 54,698 290,279

Active Permanent Modifications 163,537 37,015 200,552

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications Started8 $63,657 $51,798 $60,852 

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications Started (%)9 31.9% 18.0% 30.3%

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Reduced on 

Permanent Modifications Started8 $20,372,941,028 $3,503,373,602 $23,876,314,630 

The HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA) has 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

Modification Characteristics: HAMP vs. HAMP with Principal Reduction

All HAMP Modifications Total HAMP Modifications with 

Principal Reduction

Permanent Modifications – Median LTV ratio:

- Before Modification 114.5% 139.5%

- After Modification 114.6% 105.0%

Permanent Modifications – Median Before Modification Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio:

- Front-End DTI 42.7% 41.9%

- Back-End DTI 64.4% 53.7%

14
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

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)* 163,140

Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien Extinguishments 48,318

Active Second Lien Modifications** 79,343

Active Second Lien Modifications Involving Partial Lien Extinguishments 10,470

* Includes 9,181 loans that have a qualifying first lien GSE Standard Modification.

** Includes 9,535 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.

The Second Lien Modification Program

Estimated Eligible 2nd Liens10

2MP Participating Servicer Name 2MP Modifications Started Current Estimated Eligible 2nd Liens

Bank of America, N.A. 38,499 1,922

CitiMortgage, Inc. 20,341 2,075

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 44,703 1,039

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 9,810 1,391

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 25,032 3,607

Other Servicers 24,755 2,741

Total 163,140 12,775

Median Monthly Payment Reduction:

Second lien official modifications

Reduction on second lien only $152 

Combined first and second lien reduction $772 

% of total monthly payment 42%

Second lien full extinguishments

Combined first and second lien reduction $963 

% of total monthly payment 51%

Debt Extinguishment:

HAMP homeowners receiving partial or full extinguishment

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Extinguished $3.6B

Top Three States by Activity:

Percent of Total 2MP Modifications Started

California 33%

Florida 10%

New York 7%

Note: Only five of the seven largest SPA servicers participate in 2MP.

2MP Modification Characteristics

15
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program

In 14% of HAFA transactions completed, the 

homeowner began a HAMP trial modification but later 

requested a HAFA agreement or was disqualified from 

HAMP.

Top Three States by 

HAFA Activity:

% of HAFA Transactions 

Completed

California 33%

Florida 17%

Nevada 5%

Non-GSE HAFA Activity by State

Non-GSE HAFA Debt Relief & Release of Subordinate Liens

Characteristics of Non-GSE HAFA Activity

Participating servicers must consider all homeowners denied for HAMP for a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure 

through the HAFA program. However, individual investors can impose additional eligibility requirements.

HAFA Activity by Investor Type

Through HAFA, homeowners can be relieved of significant 

unpaid principal balances. 

Median Unpaid Principal Balance Before HAFA $271,049 

Median Sales Price $166,100 

Median Debt Relief $114,334 

Median Debt Relief as % of UPB 45%

Total Debt Relief (cumulative) $29.7B

% of HAFA transactions completed that included 

release of a homeowner’s subordinate liens 39%

Total subordinate liens released (cumulative) $609.3M

In addition to satisfying the primary mortgage debt, as part of 

a HAFA short sale or deed-in-lieu the homeowner must be 

fully released from liability for subordinate liens. 

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.

Private Portfolio GSE Total

Short Sale 157,117 55,437 177,381 389,935

Deed-in-Lieu 11,398 5,004 47,265 63,667

Total Transactions Completed 168,515 60,441 224,646 453,602

16
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

The Home Affordable Unemployment Program

The Home Affordable Unemployment Program (UP) provided assistance to homeowners who were unable to make their 

mortgage payments as a result of unemployment. Unemployed homeowners could receive 12 months of forbearance, 

during which mortgage payments were reduced or suspended, allowing homeowners to seek employment without fear 

that they would lose their homes to foreclosure.

All UP Forbearance Plans Started 46,485

UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required 39,587

UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required 6,898

UP Activity by State

Top Three States by UP Activity: % of UP Forbearance Plans Started

California 24%

Florida 7%

Illinois 5%

*Other dispositions include Bankruptcy, Charge-Off, Action Pending, and Servicing Transfers.

3%

2%

3%

13%

1%

23%

24%

32%

Status of Homeowners Who Completed an UP Forbearance Plan

Foreclosure Started

Foreclosure Completed

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

UP Forbearance Plan Extension

New HAMP Trial

Borrower Current / Loan Paid Off

Other*

17
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

18

Making Home Affordable Program Activity by Servicer

Servicer 

HAMP Tier 1 

Permanent 

Modifications

HAMP Tier 2 

Permanent 

Modifications

Streamline 

HAMP 

Permanent 

Modifications

PRA11 

Permanent 

Modifications

2MP 

Modifications

HAFA12 nonGSE 

Transactions 

Completed

Bank of America, N.A. 103,134 8,004 N/A* 5,885 38,499 49,861

CitiMortgage, Inc. 32,881 3,784 0 3,233 20,341 2,487

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 162,915 5,579 2,077 25,441 44,703 38,215

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 183,837 25,425 1,580 11,225 9,810 11,270

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 244,433 80,809 13,951 115,433 N/A* 29,128

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 114,438 27,565 8,503 21,360 N/A* 22,374

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 199,734 12,368 0 30,432 25,032 44,639

Other Servicers 417,151 33,495 1,449 22,572 24,755 30,982

Total 1,458,523 197,029 27,560 235,581 163,140 228,956

As of December 2016, there are 139 servicers that participate in Treasury’s MHA programs, but seven servicers make up 

nearly 85% of non-GSE HAMP modifications. Program activity for these servicers is provided below. 

HAMP Permanent Modifications by Investor

Servicer 

All HAMP Permanent Modifications

GSE Private Portfolio Total

Bank of America, N.A. 39,182 53,663 18,293 111,138

CitiMortgage, Inc. 15,182 9,223 12,260 36,665

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 69,483 56,806 44,282 170,571

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 119,528 82,379 8,935 210,842

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 23,257 293,966 21,970 339,193

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 14,654 115,137 20,715 150,506

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 80,487 42,034 89,581 212,102

Other Servicers 295,093 89,342 67,660 452,095

Total 656,866 742,550 283,696 1,683,112

*Servicer does not participate in either Streamline HAMP or HAMP 2MP.
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Background

Since the MHA Program’s inception in the spring of 2009, Treasury has monitored the performance of participating mortgage 

servicers. Freddie Mac, acting as Treasury’s compliance agent, has created a separate division known as Making Home 

Affordable–Compliance (MHA-C), which evaluates servicers’ compliance with MHA guidelines through regular compliance 

reviews. MHA-C examines as many as 60 compliance criteria (see Appendix 2) and tests between 500 and 600 loan files (per 

servicer, for the largest servicers) each quarter. Loan samples are randomly selected for testing from two sources: the MHA 

transactions reported by each servicer into the MHA system of record and the servicer’s records of non-performing loans. 

This approach provides comprehensive insight into how each servicer is implementing MHA programs. This includes, for 

example, whether the servicer is properly identifying, contacting and evaluating borrowers who are potentially eligible for 

MHA, as well as the accuracy and timeliness of the MHA data reported by the servicer. MHA-C reports the results of each 

compliance review to Treasury and the servicer. For identified instances of noncompliance, Treasury requires servicers to 

take remedial actions which include, but are not limited to: identifying and re-evaluating any affected loans, performing 

retroactive analysis when an issue is potentially systemic, and enhancing the effectiveness of internal controls.

It is important to note that servicer participation in MHA is voluntary, based on a contract with Fannie Mae as financial agent 

on behalf of Treasury. 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 permanent modifications under HAMP and completed transactions under HAFA.

MHA Servicer Assessments

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

transparency and drive servicers to improve their performance. The assessments highlight the results of MHA compliance 

reviews and rate servicers on the level of improvement needed. In addition, the assessments include program 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 and report program data to Treasury. The assessments do not rate the servicer based on program 

results, but compare each servicer’s program results for a given quarter against the other large servicers participating in the 

program.

Treasury has periodically enhanced the assessments to focus on new or emerging areas of interest, provide additional insight 

into the impact of servicer performance on homeowners’ experience, and foster further improvement in servicer 

performance. The most recent changes, effective the second quarter of 2015, included: the addition of metrics that address 

timely evaluation of borrowers for HAMP, accuracy of interest rate step-up changes, and timeliness and completeness of 

interest rate step-up notices; the consolidation of two “second look” metrics; the removal of the non-approval metric; and 

tightened performance benchmarks. 

Each quarter, Treasury reviews the compliance results and ratings, the program results, and other relevant factors affecting 

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

determining whether a servicer needs substantial, moderate or minor improvement to its overall performance under MHA. 

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 withhold 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, 

not incentives paid to servicers for the benefit of homeowners or investors.

Please refer to Appendices 1 and 2 for more information concerning the MHA Servicer Assessments.

Making Home Affordable Servicer Assessments

19
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Improvement Needed Servicer Name

Minor

Bank of America, N.A.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Moderate CitiMortgage, Inc.

Substantial Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Fourth Quarter 2016 Servicer Assessment Summary Results

20

The table above summarizes the results of the MHA Servicer Assessments for the fourth quarter of 2016. The compliance 

and program results for the individual servicers can be found on the following pages. 

CitiMortgage, Inc. was found to need moderate improvement, however, compliance results approached the level required 

for a determination of minor improvement.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC was found to need substantial improvement. After considering all relevant factors, Treasury 

determined that withholding incentives from this servicer was not warranted this quarter. Treasury will consider 

withholding servicer incentives in the future if the servicer’s performance does not improve.
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

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. Please refer to Appendix 1 for more information concerning the metrics described 

below.

Compliance Metrics Overview 

21

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

2.0%



Second Look % Noncompliance 

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not 

concur with or was unable to conclude on the servicer's 

MHA eligibility determination for applicable programs

2.0%

 Homeowner Evaluation 

and Assistance

Assesses whether servicer 

correctly evaluates 

homeowners' eligibility for 

MHA programs and 

communicates decisions 

timely. 



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%



Timely HAMP Evaluation % Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed for which MHA-C 

determined the servicer did not complete the 

evaluation within the prescribed time frame for reasons 

within the servicer’s control

2.0%

 Program Management 

and Reporting

Assesses whether the 

servicer has effective 

program management, 

submits timely and accurate 

program reports and 

information and whether 

the servicer accurately and 

timely communicates 

interest rate step-ups.



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

2.0%



Interest Rate Step-Up Changes

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C noted 

discrepancies between the terms of the interest rate stepup in the official modification agreement and payment 

application in the loan payment history

5.0%



Interest Rate Step-Up Notices

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C noted that 

the interest rate step-up notices sent by the servicer were 

not in accordance with MHA guidelines

5.0%
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

22

Fourth Quarter 2016 Compliance Results

Servicer 

Single Point of 

Contact 

Assignment % 

Noncompliance

Second 

Look %

Noncompliance

Income 

Calculation

Error %

Timely HAMP 

Evaluation % 

Noncompliance

Incentive 

Payment 

Data Errors

Disqualified 

Modification 

% Noncompliance

Interest Rate 

Step-Up 

Changes % 

Noncompliance

Interest Rate 

Step-Up 

Notices % 

Noncompliance¤

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

Bank of 

America, N.A.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 1.2% 2.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%

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

CitiMortgage, 

Inc.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.0%

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

JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, 

N.A.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 3.8%

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

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.4% 4.0% 0.0% 2.1% 1.3% 0.0% 5.8%

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

Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.8% 1.0% 0.0%

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

Select Portfolio 

Servicing, Inc.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

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

Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Rating *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

The trending table was expanded in the second quarter of 2015 to reflect the results across five assessment metrics. 

Compliance Results Trending

23

* Prior to Q2 2015, this metric was previously two separate metrics, "Second Look % Disagree" and "Second Look % Unable to 

Determine”. For comparative purposes, we have combined the historical results of these two metrics into one percentage.

** Beginning with the Q2 2015 Assessment, the Incentive Payment Data Errors metric includes PRA testing.

Note: Calculating error percentages from prior quarterly published figures may result in a slightly different percentage due to 

rounding.

Servicer 

2014

Q4

2015

Q1

2015

Q2

2015

Q3

2015

Q4

2016

Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3

2016

Q4

Bank of America, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 6.7% 0.0% 3.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bank of America, N.A. 1.4% 1.4% 0.5% 2.3% 0.5% 0.4% 1.7% 0.0% 1.2%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 3.7% 4.9% 2.5% 0.5% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 1.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 0.9% 0.4% 0.4%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 1.5% 6.9% 9.5% 6.4% 4.7% 0.4% 1.6% 1.2% 0.4%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 1.0% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 2.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 1.4% 1.4% 3.4% 2.3% 1.8% 1.3% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0%

Bank of America, N.A. 1.0% 2.0% 6.0% 16.0% 11.0% 13.0% 9.0% 0.0% 2.0%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 3.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 3.0% 5.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1.0% 3.0% 4.0%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 2.0% 1.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bank of America, N.A. 0.1% 0.3% 2.5% 2.6% 1.1% 2.6% 4.2% 0.0% 0.5%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 0.6% 0.5% 1.0% 1.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 0.2% 1.0% 1.5% 0.7% 3.3% 3.0% 1.3% 0.5% 2.1%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.9%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 2.2% 1.2% 1.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 0.8% 0.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1%

Bank of America, N.A. 0.8% 0.8% 2.3% 5.0% 2.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 8.8% 2.3% 3.8% 6.0% 4.0% 1.5% 14.5% 0.8% 3.0%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 6.8% 2.0% 0.8% 3.0% 0.0% 13.0% 5.3% 12.8% 1.3%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 3.8% 1.8% 7.3% 3.8% 3.8% 2.3% 2.0% 2.5% 1.8%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 6.8% 9.3% 2.8% 1.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Single Point of Contact Assignment % Noncompliance

Second Look % Noncompliance (Combined)*

Income Calculation Error %

Incentive Payment Data Errors **

Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance 
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2 Trials Aged 6+ Months (% of Active Trials)13

Average Calendar Days to Resolve All Escalated Cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

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

Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

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.

# Days

Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016

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. As the MHA program approaches its end date, the average 

calendar days required to resolve escalations may rise due to fewer incoming cases and the difficulty of resolving the 

more complex, longstanding cases.

HAMP Program Results

24

Q1’16 187 187 172 730 162 139 437

Q2’16 203 110 228 606 152 121 405

Q3’16 158 74 252 402 143 97 387

Q4’16 138 221 186 463 200 48 278

Average # Aged Trials
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Timely Reporting of All 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

Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016

Missing Permanent Modification Status Reports (%)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

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

Q1 2016

Q2 2016

Q3 2016

Q4 2016

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. 

25

HAMP Program Results
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

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 Tier 1, which offers modifications for Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) 

and non-GSE homeowners; HAMP Tier 2, which offers modifications for non-GSE homeowners; and Streamline HAMP, which offers 

modifications for non-GSE homeowners. 

HAMP Tier 2 is modeled after the GSE Standard Modification, which was created in October 2011 when the GSEs launched the 

Servicer Alignment Initiative (SAI). HAMP Tier 2 expands eligibility to include homeowners with properties currently occupied by a 

tenant as well as vacant properties the homeowner intends to rent.

Streamline HAMP is modeled after the GSE Streamlined Modification, which was launched in July 2013. Streamline HAMP provides 

seriously delinquent homeowners the opportunity to receive a modification with no income documentation and reduced hardship 

documentation.

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

Housing Administration (FHA). 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 HAMP Tier 1, Tier 2, or GSE Standard Modification 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

MHA programs terminated on December 31, 2016, except with respect to certain loan modification applications made before that 

date. Reporting will continue, however. 

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, Streamline HAMP, GSE Standard Modifications 

and both Treasury FHA- and RD-HAMP. HAMP Tier 1 includes both GSE and non-GSE modifications. Treasury's FHA-HAMP and RDHAMP are similar to HAMP Tier 1. The GSEs do not participate in HAMP Tier 2; however, the GSE Standard Modification is similar to 

HAMP Tier 2. The GSEs do not participate in Streamline HAMP; however, the GSE Streamlined Modification is similar to Streamline 

HAMP. While Streamline HAMP is modeled after GSE Streamlined Modification, GSE Streamlined Modification data is not included in 

this report. 

GSE Standard Modification data is provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of June 2016. The GSEs undertake other foreclosure 

prevention activities beyond their participation in MHA, including the GSE Streamlined Modification, that are not reflected in this 

report. The latest Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report can be found at: www.FHFA.gov.

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. 26
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

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 and a second lien (2MP) modification realize a higher monthly payment 

reduction on their first lien compared to the overall population of first lien homeowners because of the higher median first lien 

unpaid principal balance.

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 June 2016. 

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. This population represents only a portion of 

each servicer’s overall mortgage servicing operation. Treasury’s compliance reviews solely assess compliance with MHA requirements 

established by Treasury under contracts with participating servicers. Treasury does not assess servicers’ compliance with rules or 

requirements established by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (the GSEs) or the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), among others. 

Moreover, Treasury cannot and does not assess compliance of servicing activities outside of MHA. Servicers’ compliance with laws or 

regulations relating to mortgage servicing are enforced by other Federal agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(CFPB), or by state authorities. 

The servicer assessments have set a benchmark for providing detailed information about how mortgage servicers are performing 

against specific metrics. 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 industry-accepted 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.

27
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

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 % Noncompliance:

Second Look is a process in which MHA-C reviews potentially eligible 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 combined percentage of 

loans reviewed in Second Look where MHA-C disagreed with a servicer’s solicitation efforts and/or eligibility review and 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 Second Look Noncompliance 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 noncompliant remain on foreclosure hold until the servicer completes the appropriate corrective actions.

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 2% 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. 

Timely HAMP Evaluation % Noncompliance:

Servicers are required to evaluate borrowers for HAMP within 30 calendar days from the date a complete loss mitigation application is 

received. This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed for which MHA-C determined the servicer did not complete the 

evaluation within the prescribed time frame for reasons within the servicer’s control.

For Timely HAMP Evaluation Noncompliance, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: 

correcting operational issues such that borrowers are evaluated in a timely manner, and implementing controls that allow servicer 

management to identify and prioritize HAMP eligibility determinations are at risk of being delayed. 

28
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

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.

Interest Rate Step-up Changes:

In year five of a borrower’s modification, the interest rate on their modification may increase. This metric measures whether the step 

payment interest rate and principal and interest payment were applied in accordance with the terms of the Modification Agreement.

For Interest Rate Step-Up Change results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to: 

reversing incorrect payment applications within the servicer’s system and re-applying payments according to the terms of the Interest 

Rate Step-Up and correcting system and operational processes such that borrower payments are accurately applied according to the 

terms of the Interest Rate Step-Ups in the Modification Agreement.

Interest Rate Step-up Notices:

Servicers are required to send two notices of an Interest Rate Step-Up to the borrower prior to the first Step Payment Effective Date. 

The first notice must be sent at least 120 calendar days, but no more than 240 calendar days, before the initial payment is due at the 

adjusted level. An additional notice must be sent 60-75 days before the initial payment is due at the adjusted level. For subsequent 

adjustments, notice must be sent at least 60 calendar days, but not more than 120 calendar days, before the first payment is due at 

each adjusted level.

This metric measures the percentage of loans reviewed where the notices were not sent within the required timeframes and/or did 

not include the required elements.

For Interest Rate Step-Up Notice results, remedial actions Treasury requires servicers to take include, but are not limited to, 

correcting system and operational processes such that Interest Rate Step-Up Notices are sent within the required timeframes and 

updating notice templates to ensure that all required information is included in the Interest Rate Step-Up Notices sent to the 

borrower.

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

29
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric

Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

HAMP Solicitation

Second Look Servicer appropriately solicited borrowers for HAMP and that the 

Directed Actions servicer met the reasonable efforts requirements

Second Lien Solicitation Second Look Servicer has 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 Servicer sent potentially eligible borrowers HAMP packages following 

RPC

Timely SPOC Assignment Second Look Servicer 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 Second Look

Upon receiving any part of a HAMP package, servicer 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, 

servicer 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 

Accurate occupancy status Core Eligibility/Incentive Borrower occupancy status in the HAMP system of record is accurate

Origination date Core Eligibility/Incentive Origination date of the mortgage is prior to January 1, 2009

Unpaid Principal Balance Core Eligibility/Incentive Pre-modification unpaid principal balance does not exceed program 

limits

Completed Request for 

Mortgage Assistance or 

Hardship Affidavit

Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer obtained a signed Request for Mortgage Assistance or Hardship 

Affidavit

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

30
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric

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 

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 Servicer sent accurate TPP Notices to borrowers entering a Trial 

modification

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

Recast Notices Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent the Recast Notice to the borrower within the required 

timeframe

Accepted Recast Offer Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately processed the Accepted Recast Offer

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 Servicer 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 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 applied 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 sent accurate Non-Approval Notices for denied second lien 

modifications within specified time frame 

Accurate HAFA Eligibility 

Assessment

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Servicer reviewed HAFA applications and makes appropriate eligibility 

decision 

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

short sale or deed-in-lieu

Escalated Cases Directed Actions Servicer timely and accurately resolved escalated case complaints

Solicitation of Financial 

counseling notices Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer considered borrower for financial counseling by sending a 

notification with the TPP

Timely mailing of 2MP TPPs Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent 2MP TPP’s within the required timeframe

Timely mailing of HAFA Short 

Sale notices Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent HAFA Short Sale Notices within the required timeframe

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

31
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric

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 applied 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 sent accurate first notice of Interest Rate Increase between 120 

and 240 days prior to first rate increase

Timely and accurate 60-Day Notice 

of Interest Rate Increase Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent accurate second notice of Interest Rate Increase between 60 

and 75 days prior to first rate increase

Timely and accurate subsequent 

60-Day Notice of Interest Rate 

Increase

Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent accurate subsequent notice of Interest Rate Increase 

between 60 and 120 days prior to subsequent rate increase

Accuracy of step rate increases Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately calculated and implemented HAMP rate increases

Appropriate timing on reporting of 

denial to IR2 (i.e. at least 30 days 

after letter sent)

Second Look Servicer reported HAMP denials to the Program Administrator in 

accordance with program guidelines

Accurate reporting of HAMP 

Trials/Perm Mods to IR2 Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately reported modification information to the Program 

Administrator including all data used in calculating incentives

Appropriate notification to 

borrowers of Post-Modification 

Counseling 

Core Eligibility/Incentive Borrowers entering Trial Period Plans are notified of the availability of 

financial counseling

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 Servicer reported 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 Servicer reported 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

Proper resolution of Escalated 

Cases Directed Actions Borrower complaints are resolved accurately

Timely processing of escalated 

cases

Directed Actions Borrower complaints are resolved within prescribed time period or the 

borrower is notified appropriately of delays

Validation of receipt and 

completeness of MHA Data for 

transferred loans by transferee 

servicer

Transfer Testing Within 60 days of transfer, the transferee servicer validated the acquired 

loans contained all required MHA data

Timely processing of transferred 

Trial Period Plans Transfer Testing Borrowers in Trial Period Plans as of the date of transfer were 

appropriately placed into Official Modifications

Application of incentives for 

transferred modifications Transfer Testing Borrower incentives were applied correctly to unpaid principal balance of 

transferred loans where appropriate

32
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 3: 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 misses 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. 

Monthly Housing Payment:

Principal and interest payment.

33
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Note # Section End Notes 

1 MHA Program Updates

(page 4)

- Delinquency data are as of January 2009 and December 2016; BKFS Mortgage Monitor.

- Negative Equity data are as of Q1 2009 and Q3 2016; June 2010 HUD Scorecard and CoreLogic

Negative Equity report.

- Foreclosure Starts are of January 2009 and December 2016; BKFS Mortgage Monitor.

- Proprietary Modifications: HOPE Now

- FHA Loss Mitigation: HUD

2 MHA Program Updates

(page 6)

MHA Program Activity includes HAMP Tier 1, HAMP Tier 2, and Streamline HAMP, except where 

specified.

3 MHA Program Updates

(page 6)

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started includes GSE Standard Modifications (GSE SAI) but 

not GSE Streamlined Modifications. For details on all GSE programs, visit http://www.FHFA.gov/. 

4 HAMP Program Results

(page 7)

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.

5 HAMP Program Results

(page 7 and page 11)

Data is as reported by servicers for actions completed through the end of the quarter 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.

6 HAMP Program Results

(page 10)

Servicers did not submit 2.0% of the total required OMRs for loans aged up to 60 months in the 

current reporting period. In addition, reported loan counts may shift from prior reports due to 

servicer data corrections. For example, 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 Tier 1 permanent modifications that have aged 60 months 

may range between 42.6% and 42.7%. 

7 Other MHA Programs

(page 14) Includes some modifications with additional principal reduction outside of HAMP PRA.

8 Other MHA Programs

(page 14)

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

entire amount that may be forgiven.

9 Other MHA Programs

(page 14) Principal amount reduced as a percentage of before-modification UPB, excluding capitalization.

10 Other MHA Programs

(page 15)

Survey data indicates that program to date, 405,991 qualifying first lien modifications have been 

matched with a second lien. Of these matched second liens, approximately 57% 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.

11

Results by Servicer

(page 18)

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.

12 Results by Servicer

(page 18) Includes non-GSE activity under the MHA program only. Servicer GSE program data not available.

13 Results by Servicer

(page 24)

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 Aged Trials. As a result, fluctuations 

are expected in this population.

Appendix 4: End Notes

34
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 5: All HAMP Activity by State

State Trial Modifications Started Permanent Modifications Started Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

AK 1,367 813 $475.38 32%

AL 18,608 11,600 $263.34 33%

AR 7,310 4,437 $246.20 33%

AZ 93,823 57,225 $435.58 37%

CA 519,183 368,503 $700.01 36%

CO 32,998 21,675 $404.00 33%

CT 35,687 25,103 $513.61 37%

DC 4,630 3,069 $528.74 32%

DE 8,660 5,891 $398.56 32%

FL 305,890 204,332 $457.78 39%

GA 95,482 61,221 $352.21 36%

HI 9,310 6,405 $769.83 33%

IA 7,834 4,721 $248.75 34%

ID 9,179 5,844 $365.38 33%

IL 129,843 88,480 $489.59 40%

IN 28,884 18,583 $260.83 34%

KS 7,559 4,597 $283.06 33%

KY 12,017 7,684 $263.34 34%

LA 18,727 12,142 $279.25 34%

MA 57,794 40,564 $564.18 35%

MD 83,149 57,269 $552.54 34%

ME 7,511 5,271 $376.55 35%

MI 73,665 46,704 $339.98 38%

MN 38,255 24,417 $415.34 35%

MO 29,836 18,589 $290.31 35%

MS 11,621 7,495 $247.62 34%

MT 2,979 1,795 $386.67 32%

NC 53,344 34,167 $297.72 34%

ND 528 287 $275.76 32%

NE 4,230 2,677 $260.97 34%

NH 10,990 7,575 $459.84 34%

NJ 91,987 63,902 $610.02 37%

NM 9,235 5,995 $342.72 33%

NV 55,389 34,954 $519.24 38%

NY 132,404 93,444 $746.78 38%

OH 64,553 39,951 $290.10 37%

OK 8,573 5,136 $243.65 34%

OR 27,410 18,066 $444.74 34%

PA 66,555 44,686 $332.64 34%

RI 12,106 8,627 $523.20 39%

SC 28,088 17,832 $289.51 33%

SD 1,109 625 $261.46 30%

TN 32,211 20,945 $282.99 35%

TX 89,988 54,802 $277.99 34%

UT 19,813 13,036 $422.47 32%

VA 59,930 39,553 $474.08 32%

VT 2,279 1,653 $362.73 34%

WA 50,921 34,914 $494.26 33%

WI 25,882 17,240 $340.40 36%

WV 3,978 2,439 $299.14 30%

WY 1,310 824 $356.46 30%

PR 6,672 5,313 $280.23 37%

Nationwide* 2,511,344 1,683,112 $470.24 35%

* Includes U.S. Territories

35
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Median Values

State Before Mod 

DTI

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I

Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

After Mod UPB

After Mod 

Monthly 

P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after 

All Increases

Final Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

AK 45.11% 6.8% $1,461.88 $4,166.67 $213,634.56 $845.04 $93.19 $176.83 -$426.29

AL 46.66% 6.8% $869.89 $2,264.55 $118,534.19 $494.50 $47.56 $96.53 -$241.12

AR 45.75% 6.5% $801.46 $2,129.89 $114,918.78 $458.70 $48.75 $100.19 -$212.70

AZ 49.52% 6.4% $1,190.92 $2,800.00 $178,054.56 $652.95 $77.98 $188.59 -$310.31

CA 48.78% 6.1% $1,940.40 $4,670.00 $306,786.83 $1,059.49 $134.91 $308.58 -$480.42

CO 46.55% 6.4% $1,233.88 $3,169.99 $188,674.42 $729.83 $80.32 $179.30 -$300.84

CT 45.54% 6.5% $1,455.82 $4,333.33 $210,287.49 $777.84 $90.70 $197.04 -$412.89

DC 47.70% 6.4% $1,691.25 $4,097.35 $272,631.84 $959.26 $119.23 $263.40 -$387.35

DE 47.05% 6.5% $1,279.96 $3,119.21 $195,845.13 $750.65 $83.52 $173.83 -$311.00

FL 47.55% 6.5% $1,192.04 $3,278.04 $171,100.09 $615.05 $75.00 $168.01 -$350.34

GA 47.50% 6.5% $1,004.20 $2,634.12 $143,237.50 $554.37 $61.52 $137.09 -$281.93

HI 48.95% 6.3% $2,426.54 $5,388.67 $394,661.23 $1,368.91 $175.15 $373.50 -$523.45

IA 44.49% 6.6% $773.71 $2,280.49 $107,210.76 $428.29 $44.49 $92.63 -$208.53

ID 48.61% 6.5% $1,148.03 $2,731.22 $170,576.90 $654.30 $73.86 $164.26 -$289.03

IL 47.08% 6.5% $1,277.86 $3,700.99 $178,500.00 $641.57 $78.12 $176.84 -$394.34

IN 46.17% 6.8% $811.98 $2,149.34 $109,396.19 $450.75 $44.52 $93.29 -$224.83

KS 44.50% 6.6% $897.75 $2,713.25 $126,440.83 $499.38 $51.37 $110.73 -$243.62

KY 45.85% 6.8% $814.60 $2,205.60 $112,155.24 $457.83 $45.97 $96.24 -$225.00

LA 45.54% 6.9% $892.12 $2,561.44 $123,247.51 $494.65 $51.34 $100.36 -$254.90

MA 47.02% 6.4% $1,656.06 $4,336.45 $250,065.46 $911.12 $107.87 $237.40 -$426.74

MD 46.87% 6.4% $1,671.33 $4,333.00 $259,621.35 $936.67 $113.46 $249.97 -$413.57

ME 46.61% 6.5% $1,133.80 $3,004.91 $162,934.91 $614.29 $69.69 $142.43 -$301.87

MI 46.92% 6.5% $955.05 $2,667.00 $129,734.63 $504.10 $54.15 $123.41 -$277.72

MN 46.14% 6.3% $1,202.02 $3,295.00 $178,204.36 $675.27 $76.42 $174.80 -$309.73

MO 46.04% 6.6% $878.59 $2,474.95 $122,493.38 $481.89 $50.69 $108.34 -$250.20

MS 46.43% 6.9% $809.39 $2,202.50 $110,320.62 $443.74 $44.72 $88.44 -$237.23

MT 46.95% 6.4% $1,268.22 $3,250.00 $194,342.55 $730.05 $81.17 $170.21 -$311.74

NC 46.48% 6.6% $943.83 $2,490.00 $133,303.28 $536.00 $55.84 $115.95 -$252.61

ND 42.47% 6.5% $881.34 $2,730.33 $127,650.15 $510.05 $54.36 $119.45 -$216.88

NE 43.79% 6.8% $771.79 $2,457.87 $107,700.26 $442.20 $44.51 $90.12 -$214.47

NH 43.98% 6.4% $1,341.76 $4,163.75 $198,087.40 $763.16 $84.35 $180.18 -$347.29

Appendix 6: HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State

36
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Median Values

State Before Mod 

DTI

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I

Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

After Mod UPB

After Mod 

Monthly 

P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after 

All Increases

Final Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

NJ 45.22% 6.4% $1,701.20 $5,245.00 $249,862.31 $885.78 $109.95 $235.03 -$472.29

NM 47.29% 6.5% $1,058.80 $2,745.86 $156,098.36 $613.20 $67.37 $142.55 -$286.04

NV 50.14% 6.3% $1,368.23 $3,125.89 $207,865.15 $738.22 $91.38 $216.09 -$363.83

NY 47.03% 6.4% $2,082.39 $5,716.70 $312,942.73 $1,086.11 $137.54 $294.58 -$580.76

OH 45.44% 6.6% $817.93 $2,387.16 $110,043.40 $443.94 $45.34 $98.34 -$235.47

OK 44.84% 6.9% $773.49 $2,338.03 $104,749.98 $436.15 $42.68 $85.75 -$224.88

OR 46.69% 6.4% $1,321.13 $3,442.49 $206,312.22 $767.89 $90.83 $197.67 -$322.90

PA 45.23% 6.6% $1,077.80 $3,172.00 $150,993.95 $582.94 $63.27 $128.33 -$296.03

RI 47.39% 6.4% $1,358.82 $3,642.98 $196,066.52 $705.53 $84.88 $189.46 -$399.31

SC 46.75% 6.6% $958.21 $2,482.41 $136,803.27 $545.10 $57.61 $120.03 -$252.81

SD 44.03% 6.5% $932.29 $2,724.00 $136,248.43 $528.82 $55.96 $123.39 -$215.07

TN 47.04% 6.9% $869.62 $2,294.06 $117,855.05 $479.98 $47.83 $98.82 -$259.11

TX 43.18% 7.0% $852.75 $2,935.35 $117,625.37 $482.27 $48.05 $97.97 -$248.11

UT 47.67% 6.5% $1,366.46 $3,268.09 $210,987.47 $801.31 $92.43 $209.06 -$321.20

VA 46.68% 6.4% $1,590.74 $4,047.00 $248,121.62 $902.85 $107.28 $237.01 -$359.73

VT 45.99% 6.6% $1,149.63 $3,138.52 $169,275.49 $629.80 $72.12 $154.74 -$304.92

WA 46.43% 6.4% $1,510.83 $3,968.68 $240,866.08 $872.30 $106.32 $229.78 -$351.34

WI 45.12% 6.5% $983.89 $2,980.33 $137,641.93 $530.13 $58.58 $125.06 -$276.17

WV 46.72% 6.6% $1,083.05 $2,667.50 $154,800.61 $627.19 $64.07 $127.76 -$263.75

WY 46.26% 6.5% $1,301.51 $3,222.00 $189,322.74 $793.72 $79.94 $164.01 -$306.39

PR 51.20% 6.3% $758.53 $1,611.72 $102,510.35 $433.83 $43.82 $92.20 -$215.72

Nationwide* 47.33% 6.4% $1,442.89 $3,796.10 $214,296.78 $778.75 $92.74 $206.16 -$371.05

* Includes U.S. Territories

Appendix 6: HAMP Tier 1 Scheduled Interest Rate Increases by State

37
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage

HAMP Tier 1

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18 24

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

2009Q3 3,566 4.5% 4,386 10.6% 4,584 21.1% 4,918 28.9% 5,019 33.5%

2009Q4 43,350 1.9% 47,149 6.3% 50,997 15.9% 54,171 22.4% 55,114 28.4%

2010Q1 123,512 1.5% 149,718 6.1% 160,508 16.1% 165,517 22.4% 167,337 28.7%

2010Q2 147,071 1.8% 156,674 7.5% 172,968 16.1% 170,195 24.1% 178,328 28.7%

2010Q3 85,931 1.9% 95,580 7.1% 103,843 14.5% 105,803 21.9% 105,841 26.8%

2010Q4 57,826 1.8% 62,274 5.7% 64,897 14.5% 66,427 21.1% 66,189 26.5%

2011Q1 70,583 1.0% 75,545 5.1% 79,259 13.6% 80,840 19.2% 80,510 24.9%

2011Q2 79,600 1.3% 88,857 5.8% 92,360 13.2% 91,656 20.1% 91,256 25.1%

2011Q3 80,632 1.3% 85,691 5.6% 86,683 12.3% 86,442 18.9% 84,920 23.4%

2011Q4 64,731 1.2% 67,245 4.4% 67,598 11.4% 67,758 16.8% 67,470 21.0%

2012Q1 49,175 0.8% 50,609 4.0% 50,639 10.8% 50,027 15.8% 50,533 20.0%

2012Q2 43,824 1.0% 44,802 4.6% 45,077 10.9% 44,576 16.1% 44,782 20.0%

2012Q3 47,139 1.0% 48,827 4.6% 49,546 10.0% 50,043 15.1% 50,291 18.5%

2012Q4 39,179 1.0% 41,097 3.9% 42,308 9.4% 42,555 14.0% 42,680 17.6%

2013Q1 39,148 0.7% 40,803 3.5% 41,921 9.6% 42,288 13.9% 42,070 17.7%

2013Q2 31,449 0.8% 32,924 3.9% 33,626 9.4% 33,907 14.1% 34,047 17.3%

2013Q3 31,826 0.9% 33,297 4.2% 34,691 9.3% 34,493 14.1% 34,618 16.9%

2013Q4 27,225 1.0% 28,540 3.9% 29,819 9.5% 29,812 13.9% 29,789 17.0%

2014Q1 23,617 0.9% 25,513 3.9% 26,358 10.4% 26,286 14.4% 26,367 17.8%

2014Q2 18,979 1.1% 19,783 5.1% 20,407 10.8% 20,343 15.1% 20,446 18.4%

2014Q3 16,947 1.3% 17,792 5.4% 18,365 10.7% 18,390 15.7% 18,324 19.1%

2014Q4 15,073 1.5% 16,842 4.5% 17,273 10.8% 17,452 15.5% 17,220 19.3%

2015Q1 14,764 0.9% 15,737 4.4% 16,144 11.0% 16,102 15.7% 5,636 20.2%

2015Q2 14,234 1.4% 14,785 5.5% 15,075 12.0% 15,039 16.6%

2015Q3 12,615 1.4% 13,047 5.5% 13,307 11.7% 4,336 18.8%

2015Q4 10,444 1.5% 10,901 5.6% 11,135 12.3%

2016Q1 9,609 0.9% 9,994 4.9% 3,486 12.6%

2016Q2 8,741 1.5% 9,203 5.6%

2016Q3 7,965 1.2% 2,924 6.4%

2016Q4 2,346 1.3%

All 1,221,101 1.3% 1,310,539 5.5% 1,352,874 13.1% 1,339,376 19.2% 1,318,787 24.0%

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. 

38
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage

HAMP Tier 1

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

36 48 60 72 84

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

2009Q3 5,119 41.7% 5,026 48.2% 5,007 52.3% 4,758 58.5% 4,433 65.6%

2009Q4 55,926 37.2% 55,671 43.1% 54,916 47.5% 52,744 52.8% 49,236 59.4%

2010Q1 165,631 37.5% 165,327 43.0% 162,766 47.2% 156,913 52.2% 34,325 56.7%

2010Q2 174,599 37.4% 173,734 42.6% 172,486 46.2% 165,291 51.3%

2010Q3 104,126 35.3% 104,672 39.8% 102,389 43.9% 98,053 48.9%

2010Q4 65,676 34.2% 65,666 38.8% 64,584 42.6% 62,256 47.0%

2011Q1 80,630 31.9% 80,095 36.6% 78,313 40.3% 26,063 45.8%

2011Q2 91,256 31.6% 90,743 36.0% 88,357 39.8%

2011Q3 86,611 29.2% 84,743 34.2% 81,839 38.2%

2011Q4 67,550 26.8% 66,472 30.9% 64,666 34.6%

2012Q1 50,073 26.0% 49,473 30.1% 16,030 33.9%

2012Q2 44,701 25.5% 43,676 29.5%

2012Q3 49,572 24.0% 48,341 28.0%

2012Q4 42,061 22.7% 40,918 26.6%

2013Q1 41,560 22.4% 12,731 26.1%

2013Q2 33,901 21.9%

2013Q3 34,199 21.8%

2013Q4 29,440 21.8%

2014Q1 8,539 22.3%

2014Q2

2014Q3

2014Q4

2015Q1

2015Q2

2015Q3

2015Q4

2016Q1

2016Q2

2016Q3

2016Q4

All 1,231,170 31.4% 1,087,288 37.3% 891,353 43.0% 566,078 50.6% 87,994 58.7%

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. 

39
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage

HAMP Tier 2

Mod. Effective 

in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18

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

2012Q3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0%

2012Q4 946 1.3% 1,116 5.4% 1,187 17.4% 1,245 23.2%

2013Q1 2,480 1.4% 2,714 7.2% 2,875 19.5% 2,979 26.8%

2013Q2 4,100 1.5% 4,451 8.0% 5,052 17.5% 5,155 24.7%

2013Q3 11,189 2.0% 13,192 8.2% 13,611 16.7% 13,520 24.8%

2013Q4 11,208 1.9% 11,781 7.3% 12,592 17.1% 12,501 23.4%

2014Q1 10,501 1.4% 11,608 6.7% 12,014 16.9% 11,799 23.0%

2014Q2 10,875 1.4% 11,183 7.3% 11,291 15.8% 11,194 22.3%

2014Q3 9,164 1.9% 9,467 8.0% 9,942 15.5% 9,830 22.4%

2014Q4 11,041 1.8% 12,681 6.4% 12,893 16.2% 13,272 22.8%

2015Q1 13,068 1.2% 14,043 6.5% 14,209 16.9% 14,120 23.2%

2015Q2 13,946 1.6% 14,251 8.5% 14,314 17.8% 14,342 25.0%

2015Q3 14,275 2.1% 14,706 8.8% 14,950 17.7% 4,802 26.8%

2015Q4 11,835 2.1% 12,092 7.5% 12,531 17.4%

2016Q1 12,598 1.2% 13,100 6.4% 4,147 17.0%

2016Q2 12,801 1.4% 13,239 7.7%

2016Q3 12,464 1.8% 4,265 8.2%

2016Q4 3,531 1.4%

All 166,022 1.7% 163,889 7.5% 141,608 17.0% 114,760 23.7%

Mod. Effective 

in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

24 36 48 60

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

2012Q3 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0%

2012Q4 1,258 28.7% 1,283 34.5% 1,252 39.9%

2013Q1 3,011 32.3% 3,235 36.8% 804 42.8%

2013Q2 5,190 29.2% 5,255 34.7%

2013Q3 13,824 28.7% 14,021 34.7%

2013Q4 12,644 28.0% 12,720 34.4%

2014Q1 12,015 27.4% 3,883 34.7%

2014Q2 10,999 27.7%

2014Q3 9,832 27.1%

2014Q4 13,166 27.8%

2015Q1 5,107 28.9%

2015Q2

2015Q3

2015Q4

2016Q1

2016Q2

2016Q3

2016Q4

All 87,047 28.2% 40,398 34.8% 2,057 41.0%

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. 40
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 85 $196.03 34%

Aguadilla-Isabela, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 238 $244.58 35%

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,078 $298.94 37%

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 416 $244.57 33%

Albany, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 393 $318.13 31%

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,196 $347.69 34%

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,886 $331.89 33%

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 216 $249.06 33%

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,969 $394.40 34%

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 193 $220.94 33%

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 175 $259.24 37%

Ames, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 76 $288.49 34%

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 621 $491.98 32%

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,325 $420.22 36%

Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 216 $221.73 32%

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 420 $313.08 35%

Arecibo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 227 $260.25 37%

Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,493 $346.41 34%

Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 631 $305.54 34%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 48,238 $371.73 37%

Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,909 $480.27 38%

Auburn-Opelika, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 309 $277.56 29%

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,238 $264.91 35%

Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,211 $323.42 33%

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,870 $466.83 37%

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 19,454 $463.60 33%

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 445 $297.57 34%

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,040 $603.80 36%

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,921 $263.12 32%

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 490 $259.97 37%

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 316 $229.90 35%

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 442 $226.59 35%

Beckley, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 110 $190.34 31%

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 690 $476.84 34%

Bend-Redmond, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,325 $524.55 37%

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 178 $290.33 28%

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 363 $234.41 35%

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,293 $281.32 33%

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area 61 $339.62 34%

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 214 $306.34 31%

Bloomington, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 266 $286.08 35%

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 257 $241.36 29%

Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 110 $255.67 37%

Boise City, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,243 $379.52 34%

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 28,001 $611.28 35%

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 723 $489.97 34%

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 216 $243.47 34%

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,114 $466.75 32%

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,737 $689.19 39%

41

Appendix 8: All HAMP Activity by MSA
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 734 $231.77 35%

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 304 $328.16 34%

Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,985 $259.14 36%

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 502 $268.65 33%

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area 501 $419.47 35%

California-Lexington Park, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 643 $495.28 29%

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,489 $269.72 36%

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,557 $465.57 40%

Cape Girardeau, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 123 $232.05 31%

Carbondale-Marion, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 94 $253.02 42%

Carson City, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 434 $519.78 37%

Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 149 $333.39 30%

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 406 $254.93 33%

Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 473 $345.29 31%

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 254 $243.69 32%

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 172 $221.21 34%

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,589 $345.99 34%

Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,985 $306.39 33%

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 730 $384.46 31%

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,670 $277.47 35%

Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 164 $275.62 27%

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 85,088 $502.54 40%

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,257 $454.78 34%

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,232 $309.21 36%

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 310 $224.25 32%

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 273 $261.70 35%

Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,157 $307.75 38%

Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 720 $412.43 34%

College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 156 $221.07 28%

Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,306 $393.85 34%

Columbia, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 184 $246.88 32%

Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,134 $266.00 33%

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 913 $272.68 35%

Columbus, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 140 $219.48 31%

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,463 $315.03 36%

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 514 $238.85 33%

Corvallis, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 119 $348.52 26%

Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,067 $412.52 35%

Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 185 $247.31 34%

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 18,298 $291.55 33%

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 525 $259.17 35%

Danville, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 73 $208.42 38%

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3 $361.89 48%

Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 661 $337.44 33%

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 662 $241.40 36%

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,421 $266.43 37%

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 233 $218.19 30%

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 119 $210.35 36%

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,777 $383.92 38%

42

Appendix 8: All HAMP Activity by MSA
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 13,198 $404.43 33%

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,678 $271.45 33%

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 27,344 $373.68 39%

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 226 $217.79 31%

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,069 $387.62 30%

Dubuque, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 122 $256.32 35%

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 773 $281.62 34%

Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,608 $318.98 35%

East Stroudsburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,414 $454.41 38%

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 270 $286.11 33%

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,652 $430.30 35%

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,681 $248.35 34%

Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 193 $233.02 31%

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 681 $253.32 33%

Elmira, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $257.58 40%

Enid, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 36 $204.03 30%

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 483 $238.23 39%

Eugene, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,344 $384.58 33%

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 519 $214.95 33%

Fairbanks, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 77 $382.13 27%

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 205 $278.07 31%

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 147 $301.31 28%

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 831 $235.38 35%

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,303 $292.79 34%

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 356 $516.62 34%

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,003 $321.53 37%

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 629 $230.86 34%

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 186 $210.17 34%

Fond du Lac, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 198 $304.05 35%

Fort Collins, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 934 $404.04 31%

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 285 $207.08 31%

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,032 $243.89 36%

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,583 $471.69 37%

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 206 $242.28 33%

Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 814 $331.11 36%

Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,212 $331.01 36%

Gettysburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 455 $397.65 33%

Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 446 $326.70 37%

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 240 $235.57 35%

Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 70 $230.39 30%

Grand Island, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 67 $208.92 31%

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 625 $407.89 32%

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,526 $285.03 34%

Grants Pass, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 501 $469.88 36%

Great Falls, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 89 $257.52 29%

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,208 $353.79 30%

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 654 $343.34 38%

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,017 $287.33 35%

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 427 $279.87 35%

Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,788 $259.33 33%

43

Appendix 8: All HAMP Activity by MSA
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Guayama, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 50 $172.69 31%

Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,031 $265.66 35%

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,789 $423.31 32%

Hammond, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 376 $282.40 33%

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,024 $418.48 34%

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,364 $296.45 32%

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 276 $397.52 34%

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,716 $446.05 36%

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 273 $234.96 32%

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,214 $247.69 33%

Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 926 $461.19 37%

Hinesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $265.15 35%

Homosassa Springs, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 745 $323.86 38%

Hot Springs, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 176 $313.21 39%

Houma-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 343 $254.68 33%

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 19,455 $281.64 34%

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 405 $234.69 35%

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 771 $242.54 32%

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 338 $275.56 28%

Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,576 $272.15 33%

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 114 $314.20 32%

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 66 $341.64 34%

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 709 $292.39 37%

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,101 $248.98 33%

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 387 $236.32 35%

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,450 $365.30 35%

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 209 $281.42 31%

Janesville-Beloit, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 651 $263.91 34%

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 173 $204.44 30%

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 308 $254.70 34%

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 139 $230.47 36%

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 108 $216.50 33%

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 265 $205.74 33%

Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,296 $977.36 36%

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 973 $303.34 37%

Kankakee, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 492 $337.55 38%

Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,603 $310.95 35%

Kennewick-Richland, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 435 $272.32 32%

Killeen-Temple, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 350 $229.92 32%

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 436 $249.92 36%

Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,136 $488.51 38%

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,188 $256.10 31%

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 243 $235.91 35%

La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 165 $263.54 29%

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 812 $239.03 31%

Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 295 $263.19 35%

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 317 $228.39 33%

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,375 $405.27 36%

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,007 $361.59 36%

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,294 $306.68 31%

44

Appendix 8: All HAMP Activity by MSA
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,717 $315.36 36%

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 639 $286.53 36%

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 418 $328.37 32%

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 28,699 $521.20 38%

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 185 $324.42 33%

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 126 $214.03 36%

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 313 $292.48 31%

Lewiston, ID-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 111 $272.55 28%

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 378 $331.12 34%

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 946 $289.76 34%

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 258 $246.08 40%

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 425 $265.50 33%

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,473 $246.16 33%

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 226 $309.26 28%

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 188 $227.03 34%

Longview, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 470 $370.99 32%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 117,064 $792.89 37%

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,757 $267.05 34%

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 220 $230.39 33%

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 538 $256.82 30%

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,042 $275.99 37%

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,801 $504.21 38%

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,339 $385.64 34%

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,359 $473.99 34%

Manhattan, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 64 $310.77 31%

Mankato-North Mankato, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 169 $310.54 31%

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 369 $243.44 35%

Mayaguez, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 94 $184.87 31%

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,554 $254.10 35%

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,353 $458.36 35%

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,824 $292.78 37%

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,617 $528.61 38%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 86,789 $529.05 41%

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 419 $252.43 34%

Midland, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 176 $269.06 36%

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 93 $255.60 31%

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,803 $352.24 37%

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 20,119 $446.33 36%

Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 276 $412.98 32%

Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,462 $261.22 37%

Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,107 $554.20 37%

Monroe, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 270 $206.98 29%

Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 800 $353.74 35%

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,001 $245.04 31%

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 60 $386.24 40%

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 298 $258.81 34%

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 540 $505.40 36%

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 220 $211.21 34%

Muskegon, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 677 $247.08 38%

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,107 $372.62 36%

45

Appendix 8: All HAMP Activity by MSA
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,239 $807.90 35%

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,651 $600.13 41%

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,942 $309.94 33%

New Bern, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 203 $289.67 37%

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,655 $469.70 37%

New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,104 $325.56 36%

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 128,076 $773.96 39%

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 549 $279.62 35%

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,768 $464.49 39%

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,631 $470.59 37%

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,787 $351.96 37%

Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 688 $465.89 33%

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 79 $228.14 34%

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,032 $343.89 28%

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,251 $254.18 34%

Olympia-Tumwater, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,179 $430.48 32%

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,047 $272.09 34%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 29,270 $447.30 38%

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 311 $277.32 35%

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 156 $194.59 34%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,199 $822.24 35%

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,008 $393.29 38%

Panama City, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 730 $384.91 36%

Parkersburg-Vienna, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 91 $173.97 29%

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,961 $304.42 35%

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 558 $224.41 34%

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 33,781 $386.01 33%

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 44,725 $455.01 37%

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 109 $227.21 38%

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,445 $265.81 36%

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 298 $329.17 33%

Pocatello, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 192 $255.23 31%

Ponce, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 239 $229.18 37%

Port St. Lucie, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,622 $450.49 39%

Portland-South Portland, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,848 $436.92 35%

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 12,434 $470.22 34%

Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,412 $438.19 36%

Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 12,437 $523.18 37%

Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,697 $452.59 32%

Pueblo, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 716 $262.20 35%

Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,339 $439.13 41%

Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 838 $359.57 37%

Raleigh, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,023 $333.48 32%

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 170 $320.99 34%

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,633 $330.48 33%

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,243 $447.34 34%

Reno, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,220 $522.82 36%

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,492 $364.45 32%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 72,046 $625.85 37%

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 894 $280.82 32%

46

Appendix 8: All HAMP Activity by MSA
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 472 $323.37 33%

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,088 $262.67 36%

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,629 $320.05 38%

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 482 $249.20 36%

Rome, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 201 $237.07 31%

Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 24,219 $603.74 36%

Saginaw, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 533 $265.65 37%

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,831 $381.49 34%

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,742 $859.49 40%

Salisbury, MD-DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,087 $408.49 34%

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,101 $415.47 32%

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 64 $203.67 31%

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,139 $252.33 33%

San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,171 $749.73 36%

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 31,672 $854.95 37%

San German, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 108 $204.15 33%

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,181 $945.45 37%

San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,260 $293.64 37%

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,680 $756.64 36%

Sandusky, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2 $388.53 41%

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,658 $969.76 38%

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 694 $517.63 35%

Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,847 $727.36 38%

Santa Rosa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,332 $798.32 36%

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,510 $314.95 34%

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,747 $279.30 37%

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 22,335 $550.28 34%

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,232 $398.31 38%

Sebring, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 567 $367.72 40%

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 246 $275.94 31%

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 193 $229.60 32%

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,018 $240.88 33%

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 330 $307.72 32%

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 235 $230.54 35%

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 271 $230.67 27%

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,162 $253.26 36%

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,057 $243.39 32%

Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,851 $319.84 32%

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 243 $241.83 38%

Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,158 $355.35 34%

Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 853 $263.09 34%

Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 418 $264.83 39%

St. Cloud, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 526 $328.18 32%

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,110 $524.51 36%

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 222 $244.81 37%

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 12,616 $298.95 36%

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 182 $321.57 31%

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 286 $302.67 28%

Stockton-Lodi, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,069 $635.91 37%

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 267 $224.42 34%

47

Appendix 8: All HAMP Activity by MSA
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2016

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 986 $254.49 36%

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,500 $321.99 31%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 25,193 $397.38 38%

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 232 $215.14 39%

Texarkana, TX-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 133 $198.54 30%

The Villages, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 258 $330.59 35%

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,438 $264.59 36%

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 347 $226.10 32%

Trenton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,038 $473.60 37%

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,617 $361.32 35%

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,791 $249.72 34%

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 430 $279.68 32%

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 279 $298.03 36%

Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,230 $753.63 31%

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 455 $248.93 37%

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 233 $272.91 32%

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,901 $715.03 36%

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 57 $234.77 34%

Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 923 $356.42 36%

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,269 $390.21 32%

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,199 $418.01 36%

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 250 $209.40 34%

Walla Walla, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 128 $370.45 35%

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 414 $277.93 34%

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 55,043 $630.73 35%

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 258 $213.05 36%

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 90 $229.74 31%

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 219 $293.05 36%

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 178 $231.82 39%

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 328 $379.53 31%

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 141 $192.91 35%

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 91 $170.95 31%

Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 978 $241.80 35%

Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 198 $201.14 30%

Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,120 $393.85 35%

Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 877 $451.67 32%

Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,266 $271.73 33%

Worcester, MA-CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,691 $488.02 36%

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 500 $271.19 33%

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,947 $357.74 32%

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,593 $255.07 38%

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,535 $499.19 36%

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,310 $333.10 35%

48

Appendix 8: All HAMP Activity by MSA