Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT 

THROUGH THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2015
More than 2.4 Million Homeowner Assistance Actions have taken place under 

Making Home Affordable (MHA) programs

2

MHA AT-A-GLANCE

1MP

Q2: 57K

PTD: 1.9M

See Page 4

SECOND QUARTER 2015 SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS

2MP

 Q2: 2.7K

 PTD: 150K

See Page 13

HAFA

Q2: 16K

PTD: 374K

See Page 14

UP

 Q2: 1K

 PTD: 44K

See Page 15

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 SECOND QUARTER OF 2015

(Months of April, May and June)

Changes have been made to the Servicer Assessment metrics and benchmarks effective with the second quarter of 2015. See page 17 for 

additional information on the changes and detailed results for this quarter.

In August 2015, the Making Home Affordable website underwent a refresh, making it faster and easier for 

homeowners to find information about foreclosure prevention help. Our new site has simpler navigation and 

includes more information on how homeowners can remain successful once they are in the MHA program. 

There’s also an interactive social media hub that makes it easier for homeowners to stay connected with MHA 

news and share useful information with others. It is our goal to make the user experience as simple as possible, 

so that struggling homeowners are able to get the mortgage help they need. Check out the new website here: 

MakingHomeAffordable.gov. 
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

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

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

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

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

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) please visit its website.

3

Table of Contents

MHA PROGRAM UPDATES 4

HAMP PROGRAM RESULTS:

HAMP Summary 5

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 6

HAMP Modification Characteristics 7

Performance of Permanent HAMP Modifications 8-10

Homeowners with Disqualified Modifications 10

Post Modification Counseling 11

OTHER MHA PROGRAMS:

Principal Reduction Alternative 12

2MP Program 13

HAFA Program 14

Unemployment Program 15

RESULTS BY SERVICER:

MHA Program Activity by Servicer and Investor 16

Servicer Assessment Results 17-23

APPENDIX:

Program and Servicer Assessment Notes A-1

Terms and Methodologies A-2

Compliance Criteria Tested 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 Second Quarter 2015

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

Program-to-Date Q2 2015 QoQ % Change

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started 1,861,622 57,154 17%

HAMP Tier 1 1,396,741 17,886 16%

HAMP Tier 2 116,554 17,852 30%

GSE Standard Modifications (SAI) 260,499 11,705 -7%

Treasury FHA and RD HAMP 87,828 9,711 34%

2MP Modifications Started 149,577 2,652 18%

HAFA Transactions Completed 373,863 16,475 1%

UP Forbearance Plans Started 44,006 1,035 25%

Cumulative Activity 2,429,068 77,316 13%

MHA Program Updates

4

*Derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association Quarterly National Delinquency Survey

• New this quarter: Reporting on the performance of HAMP Tier 2 permanent modifications is included in this quarter’s 

report. While the key drivers of performance and the performance over time are consistent with HAMP Tier 1, HAMP 

Tier 2 modifications have a slightly higher rate of disqualification. This is largely driven by the different eligibility 

requirements for HAMP Tier 2, including allowing for a higher debt to income range for homeowners and offering 

another opportunity to homeowners who lost good standing on their HAMP Tier 1 modification.

• Beginning with the second quarter 2015, the framework of the MHA Servicer Assessment has been enhanced to add 

new metrics, consolidate or retire certain metrics, and tighten benchmarks against which we measure servicer 

performance. Servicers’ performance will now be assessed against eight metrics (previously seven). We expect these 

changes to provide additional insight into the impact of servicer performance on the borrower’s experience and foster 

further servicer improvements. Additional information regarding these changes can be found on page 17.

• For the second quarter of 2015, servicers either sustained or decreased performance from the prior quarter, with one 

servicer moving from the “minor improvement” category into “substantial improvement” category, and two servicers 

moving from the “moderate improvement” category into the “substantial improvement” category. Several servicers 

experienced challenges with the implementation of processes to support HAMP interest rate step-up notice 

requirements. Other areas requiring servicers’ attention include income calculation accuracy, accurate identification 

and timely reporting of defaulted HAMP modifications, and proper identification and solicitation of eligible borrowers 

for HAMP. Additional information on this quarter’s results can be found beginning on page 18.

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Delinquent Loans

(Millions)

Permanent Modifications

(Thousands)

Quarterly Trending of MHA Permanent Modifications Started 

& Estimated Number of Loans 60+ Days Delinquent*

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

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

HAMP Summary

Trial

Modifications

All Trials Started1 2,343,069

 Tier 1 2,199,627

 Tier 2 143,442

Active Trials 35,640

Trial Modifications Cancelled Since Verified Income Requirement* 96,529

Permanent 

Modifications

All Permanent Modifications Started 1,513,295

Permanent Modifications Disqualified (Cumulative)** 471,429

Active Permanent Modifications 985,061

5

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

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

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

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

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

modifications, which substantially reduced the number of trial cancellations. Prior to that date, 697,605 trials were cancelled, for a 

cumulative 794,134 trials cancelled program-to-date. 

** Does not include 55,841 loans paid off and 964 loans withdrawn.

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

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

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

• 22% were referred to foreclosure.

Outcome for Homeowners Who Do Not Receive a HAMP Modification

4%

3%

33%

25%

13%

3%

19%

Status of Homeowners Not Accepted for a HAMP Trial Modification or 

Those Whose HAMP Trial Modification was Cancelled

Action Pending

Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 

Borrower Current / Loan Payoff

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure Starts

Foreclosure Completions

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

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

begin to experience their second interest rate step-ups beginning in Q3 2015.

o Through June 2015, approximately 200,000 homeowners have experienced an interest rate step-up. Based on 

early results, 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%.

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

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

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

o The median amount of the first monthly payment increase is $94, and the median monthly payment increase after 

the final interest rate increase is $210.

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 

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

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Number of Loans

Number of Interest Rate Increases by Quarter*

First Increase Second Increase Third Increase Fourth Increase

6

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

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

Select HAMP Modification Characteristics 

7

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

at approximately $36.7 billion, program-to-date, compared with unmodified mortgage obligations. 

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

extension, and principal forbearance/forgiveness.

HAMP has two evaluation tiers:

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

achieve the target of 31%. 

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

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

mortgages only.

Select Median Permanent Modification Characteristics 

Loan 

Characteristic

Before 

Modification

After 

Modification

Median 

Decrease

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 43.9% 31.0% -13.5 pct pts

 Tier 2 28.0% 20.9% -6.4 pct pts

 All 43.2% 31.0% -12.7 pct pts

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 67.8% 50.8% -13.8 pct pts

 Tier 2 43.7% 36.3% -6.5 pct pts

 All 66.0% 49.4% -12.9 pct pts

Median Monthly Housing Payment

 Tier 1 $1,387.07 $817.25 ($500.64)

 Tier 2 $1,043.25 $681.51 ($328.41)

 All $1,360.98 $807.15 ($483.05)

Modification Steps for Permanent Modifications

Modification Step Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Interest Rate Reduction 95.9% 71.7% 94.0%

Term Extension 59.6% 80.2% 61.2%

Principal Forbearance 30.7% 32.1% 30.9%

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:

• 26% were previously in a HAMP Tier 1 trial or 

permanent modification.

• 12% were previously evaluated for HAMP Tier 1 

and did not meet eligibility requirements.

• 6% were non-owner-occupied properties. 

Characteristic Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Median Monthly Gross 

Income $3,912 $5,075 $3,985 

Median Credit Score 565 559 565

Median Property Value $177,000 $147,000 $175,000 

Additional HAMP Tier 2 Characteristics

Homeowner Characteristics
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

Performance of HAMP Permanent Modifications 

HAMP Tier 1

# Months 

Post 

Modification 

% of Disqualified HAMP Tier 1 Modifications3

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 ALL

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

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

12 16.3% 15.5% 12.7% 10.3% 9.4% 10.4% 13.2%

18 22.9% 22.7% 18.9% 15.3% 13.9% 13.6% 19.5%

24 28.9% 28.0% 23.7% 19.1% 17.5% 24.7%

30 33.4% 32.6% 27.3% 22.1% 19.8% 29.1%

36 37.6% 36.6% 30.0% 25.6% 33.3%

42 41.1% 39.3% 32.5% 28.3% 36.8%

48 43.6% 41.6% 36.1% 40.3%

54 46.0% 43.5% 39.1% 43.6%

60 48.0% 46.3% 46.5%

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

drivers of performance are highlighted on the following page. Those drivers 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 than for HAMP Tier 1. HAMP Tier 2 

# Months 

Post 

Modification 

% of Disqualified HAMP Tier 2 Modifications3

2012 2013 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 ALL

3

N/A

1.4% 1.8% 1.7% 1.2% 1.1% 1.6%

6 5.3% 7.7% 7.0% 5.6% 7.1%

12 16.6% 17.0% 16.1% 16.6%

18 22.3% 24.1% 22.9% 23.9%

24 27.6% 28.5% 28.4%

30 31.0% 34.3% 32.2%

See Appendix 6 for additional information on HAMP performance by vintage.

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

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

GSE Portfolio Private

Drivers of Performance by Tier

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

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

With Prior Tier 1 Modification

Without Prior Tier 1 Modification

8
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

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 Credit Score at the Time of Modification

Performance by Monthly Payment Reduction

Performance by Delinquency at Trial Start

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

months, only 15.0% of modifications with a monthly payment reduction greater than 50% have been disqualified due to 

missing three payments, compared to a disqualification rate of 39.1% where the payment had been cut by 20% or less.

Homeowners who were 31 to 90 days delinquent at the 

start of the HAMP trial period experienced a 22.3% redefault rate in the subsequent 24 months, compared to 

28.5% 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 19.9% re-default rate 

in the subsequent 24 months, compared to a rate of 

10.4% for homeowners whose credit scores were above 

660.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42

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

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

< 580 580 - 619 620 - 660 > 660

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

9
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

Homeowners with Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications

Homeowners at risk of foreclosure have more options due to industry-wide changes instituted since the launch of 

HAMP. In addition, HAMP guidance requires that a servicer work with a delinquent homeowner in a permanent 

modification to cure the delinquency. In the event the homeowner cannot bring a delinquent HAMP modification 

current without additional assistance, the servicer is prohibited from commencing foreclosure proceedings until the 

homeowner is evaluated for other loss mitigation action. The majority of homeowners who disqualify from a HAMP 

permanent modification receive an alternative to foreclosure or resolve their delinquency. Homeowners can also take 

advantage of other MHA and/or government sponsored assistance programs. Of the homeowners who have missed 

three payments, and therefore disqualified from HAMP, approximately 24% have been referred to foreclosure. 

8%

5%

15%

35%

13%

8%

16%

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

Source: Survey data from large servicers2

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

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

loans active in month six that disqualified by month nine.

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

5%

6%

6%

Month

6

Month

9

Month

12

Month

15

Month

18

Month

21

Month

24

Month

27

Month

30

Month

33

Month

36

Month

39

Month

42

Month

45

Month

48

Month

51

Month

54

Month

57

Month

60

3-Month Re-default Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

Conditional Re-default Rate by Modification Year

(% of Active Loans) 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

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

10
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

Post-Modification Counseling

Counseling Referral Activity by Servicer

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

timing of referrals and individual servicer program design. 

% of Referrals 

Who Take Up 

Counseling

4% 9% 15% 2% 3% 9% 8% 10%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

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

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

the homeowner to default on his or her mortgage loan. 

Through June 2015, participating servicers have referred nearly 287,000 homeowners to financial counseling. Of these 

referrals:

• 61% are permanent modifications considered by the servicers to be at risk of disqualifying from HAMP, 

39% are new trials.

• Nearly 19,000 homeowners started financial counseling, including more than 5,300 who have completed 

counseling (multiple sessions spanning several months), resulting in an overall take up rate of 6.5%.

11
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

HAMP Modifications 

with Earned 

Principal Reduction 

Under PRA4

HAMP Modifications 

with Upfront 

Principal Reduction 

Outside of PRA

Total HAMP 

Modifications 

with Principal 

Reduction

All Permanent Modifications Started 191,573 50,909 242,482

Active Permanent Modifications 147,488 39,333 186,821

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications Started5 $67,237 $53,980 $63,740 

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications Started (%)6 32.4% 18.0% 30.5%

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Reduced on 

Permanent Modifications Started5 $17,079,771,205 $3,359,056,858 $20,438,828,063 

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 116.9% 143.5%

- After Modification 115.0% 107.5%

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

- Front-End DTI 43.2% 42.7%

- Back-End DTI 66.0% 54.8%

42% 42%

46%

53%

61%

65%

71% 77%

77%

72% 73%

77%

73%

70% 70% 71% 72%

69%

66%

84%

71%

65% 60%

66%

53%

60% 61% 64% 67%

61% 62%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Q4

2010

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

2011

Q4

2011

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

2012

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2013

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2014

Q1

2015

Q2

2015

Trials Started with Principal Reduction as 

a % of Eligible Loans 

Tier 1 PRA Tier 2 PRA Tier 1 All Principal Reduction Tier 2 All Principal Reduction

12
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

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)* 149,577

Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien Extinguishments 41,687

Active Second Lien Modifications** 84,426

Active Second Lien Modifications Involving Partial Lien Extinguishments 10,926

* Includes 6,478 loans that have a qualifying first lien GSE Standard Modification.

** Includes 7,996 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 Liens7

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

Bank of America, N.A. 36,938 6,952

CitiMortgage, Inc. 19,274 2,220

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 41,875 1,946

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 5,853 492

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 23,028 5,186

Other Servicers 22,609 1,284

Total 149,577 18,080

Median Monthly Payment Reduction:

Second lien official modifications

Reduction on second lien only $153 

Combined first and second lien reduction $764 

% of total monthly payment 41%

Second Lien Full Extinguishments:

Combined first and second lien reduction $989 

% of total monthly payment 51%

Debt Extinguishment:

HAMP homeowners receiving partial or full extinguishment

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Extinguished $3.2B

Top Three States by Activity:

Percent of Total 2MP Modifications Started

California 34%

Florida 10%

New York 7%

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

2MP Modification Characteristics

13
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program

In 15% 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 36%

Florida 17%

Arizona 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 $276,235 

Median Sales Price $165,000 

Median Debt Relief $124,916 

Median Debt Relief as % of UPB 47%

Total Debt Relief (cumulative) $25.5B

% of HAFA transactions completed that included 

release of a homeowner’s subordinate liens 40%

Total subordinate liens released (cumulative) $477M

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 short sale and DIL programs, such that their Standard HAFA program is closely 

aligned with Treasury’s HAFA program. In HAFA transactions, homeowners who need to relocate:

• Follow a streamlined process for short sales and deed-in-lieu 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.

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

Private Portfolio GSE Total

Short Sale 133,063 47,330 147,961 328,354

Deed-in-Lieu 7,043 3,613 34,853 45,509

Total Transactions Completed 140,106 50,943 182,814 373,863

14
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

The Home Affordable Unemployment Program

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

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

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

they will lose their homes to foreclosure.

All UP Forbearance Plans Started 44,006

UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required 37,488

UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required 6,518

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, and Action Pending

3%

2%

2%

16%

1%

21%

24%

30%

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 Payoff

Other*

15
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

16

Making Home Affordable Program Activity by Servicer

Servicer 

HAMP Tier 1 

Permanent 

Modifications

HAMP Tier 2 

Permanent 

Modifications

PRA8 Permanent 

Modifications

2MP 

Modifications

HAFA9 non-GSE 

Transactions 

Completed

Bank of America, N.A. 101,676 3,189 5,827 36,938 48,620

CitiMortgage, Inc. 39,244 4,340 4,197 19,274 1,769

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 173,651 1,979 24,876 41,875 36,808

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 152,843 13,980 9,721 5,853 7,529

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 265,539 50,137 87,283 N/A 22,862

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 82,186 14,358 13,631 N/A 16,919

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 199,683 8,473 30,791 23,028 35,173

Other Servicers 381,919 20,098 15,247 22,609 21,369

Total 1,396,741 116,554 191,573 149,577 191,049

As of June 2015, there are 129 servicers that participate in Treasury’s MHA programs, but seven servicers make up nearly 

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

HAMP Permanent Modifications by Investor

Servicer 

HAMP Permanent Modifications

GSE Private Portfolio Total

Bank of America, N.A. 40,855 45,082 18,928 104,865

CitiMortgage, Inc. 17,809 8,747 17,028 43,584

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 76,667 57,669 41,294 175,630

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 94,972 66,515 5,336 166,823

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 54,638 238,859 22,179 315,676

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 683 86,753 9,108 96,544

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 80,651 43,914 83,591 208,156

Other Servicers 279,847 59,843 62,327 402,017

Total 646,122 607,382 259,791 1,513,295
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

Background

Since the MHA’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 1) and tests between 400 and 600 loan files 

each quarter at each of the largest servicers. 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. 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 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 assessment does not rate the program results, but 

compares each servicer’s performance for a given quarter against the other large servicers participating in the program.

Effective this quarter, changes were made to 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 changes include: addition of three metrics that address respectively, timely evaluation of 

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

notices; consolidation of two “second look” metrics; 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 & 3 for more information concerning the MHA Servicer Assessments.

Making Home Affordable Servicer Assessments

17
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

Improvement Needed Servicer Name

Minor

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Moderate CitiMortgage, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Substantial

Bank of America, N.A.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

2nd Quarter 2015 Servicer Assessment Summary Results

The table above summarizes the results of the MHA Servicer Assessments for the second quarter of 2015. The compliance 

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

Servicers either met or approached Treasury’s benchmark on compliance metrics relating to assignment of a single point 

of contact; timely evaluation of borrowers for HAMP; calculation of incentive payments; and accurate processing of 

interest rate step-up changes. Several servicers experienced challenges implementing requirements related to interest 

rate step-up notices. Also, some servicers needed improvement with respect to income calculation accuracy, accurate 

identification and timely reporting of defaulted HAMP modifications, and proper identification and solicitation of eligible 

borrowers for HAMP. 

Bank of America, Nationstar, and Ocwen were found to need substantial improvement. After considering all relevant 

factors, Treasury determined that withholding incentives from these three servicers was not warranted this quarter. In 

making this determination, Treasury considered the fact that the area where these servicers required the most 

improvement was with the initial phase of issuing interest rate step-up notices, which are reminders to borrowers of the 

terms contained in the original modification agreement. Each servicer has since begun addressing the root causes of the 

errors. Treasury also considered the level of borrower impact, servicers’ performance in other metrics, progress on 

remediation of prior issues, and program results. However, Treasury will consider withholding servicer incentives in the 

future if the servicers’ performance does not improve. 

18
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

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

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

tests that did not have a desired outcome. The below asterisked (*) benchmarks were set at 5% in previous quarters. 

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

Compliance Metrics Overview 

19

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 Second Quarter 2015

20

2nd Quarter 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

Interest Rate 

Step-Up 

Notices

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% 0.5% 6.0% 0.0% 2.5% 2.3% 2.0% 18.9%

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

CitiMortgage, 

Inc.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 2.5% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.8% 2.0% 41.8%

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

JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, 

N.A.

Servicer 

Results 1.5% 0.5% 0.0% 3.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

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

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 9.5% 1.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.8% 2.0% 37.5%

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

Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 7.3% 0.0% 35.0%

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

Select 

Portfolio 

Servicing, Inc.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.5% 3.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

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

Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A.

Servicer 

Results 3.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.8% 0.0% 4.0%

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

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

The trending table has been expanded this quarter to reflect the results across five assessment metrics. 

Compliance Results Trending

21

Servicer 2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2014

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2015

Q1

2015

Q2

Second Look % Noncompliance (Combined)*

Bank of America, N.A. 0.0% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.5%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 5.6% 4.3% 1.4% 15.2% 4.2% 3.7% 4.9% 2.5%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 3.0% 1.4% 2.3% 0.5% 0.9% 1.4% 0.4% 0.5%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 0.0% 1.5% 6.9% 9.5%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 2.3% 4.8% 3.5% 1.6% 3.1% 1.0% 1.9% 2.0%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 1.7% 5.7% 1.2% 0.6% 2.3% 2.2% 0.5% 0.5%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 4.4% 3.1% 2.6% 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 3.4%

Single Point of Contact Assignment % Noncompliance

Bank of America, N.A. 1.3% 4.7% 1.4% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 2.6% 4.7% 7.9% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 4.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 1.8% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2.9% 3.4% 3.9% 6.7% 4.2% 6.7% 0.0% 3.0%

Income Calculation Error %

Bank of America, N.A. 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 6.0%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 6.0% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0%

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

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 3.0% 3.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 5.0% 1.0%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 2.1% 3.1% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 3.0%

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

Incentive Payment Data Errors % **

Bank of America, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 2.5%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 1.7% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5% 1.0%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 3.4% 0.6% 1.7% 2.0% 0.2% 1.0% 1.5%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 0.5% 1.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 0.5% 1.0% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 2.2% 1.2% 1.6%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 1.5% 1.7% 1.1% 1.1% 0.4% 0.8% 0.3% 0.9%

Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance 

Bank of America, N.A. 0.0% 10.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.8% 0.8% 2.3%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 10.0% 3.3% 16.0% 6.0% 12.0% 8.8% 2.3% 3.8%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 6.8% 2.0% 0.8%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.0% 3.8% 1.8% 7.3%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 6.7% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 8.0% 6.8% 9.3% 2.8%

* 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: When calculating error percentages from prior quarter’s published figures, it may result in a slightly different percentage due to rounding.
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

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

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

% of Active Trials 6+ Months

Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

# Days

Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015

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

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

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

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

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

permanent modifications in subsequent reporting periods.

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

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

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

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

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

calculation of servicer time to resolve escalations.

Program Results

22

Q3’14 495 411 351 1,378 943 504 672

Q4’14 214 390 304 1,149 548 362 651

Q1’15 210 319 279 1,640 1,123 385 503

Q2’15 264 256 255 436 670 142 411

Average # Aged Trials
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

% Reported Timely

Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015

Missing Permanent Modification Status Reports (%)

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

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

Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015

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

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

performance analysis.

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

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

guidance may impact missing permanent modification status reporting.

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

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

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

transparency. 

23

Program Results
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

24

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

modified under Treasury FHA-HAMP guidelines. 

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

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

eligible first lien modification on the same property.

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

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

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

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

General MHA Program Notes:

MHA Program Effective Dates:

HAMP First Lien: April 6, 2009

PRA: October 1, 2010

2MP: August 13, 2009

HAFA: April 5, 2010

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

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

MHA First Lien Program Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

25

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 who have also received a 2MP modification realize a higher monthly 

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

principal balance is higher.

HAFA Program Notes:

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

HAFA program implemented in November 2012. GSE Standard HAFA data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of June 2015. 

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

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

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

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

transaction.

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

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

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

PRA Program Notes:

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

principal reduction on their modification.

Servicer Assessment Notes:

Treasury’s foremost goal is to assist struggling homeowners who may be eligible for MHA. 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.
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

26

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 5% differential from MHA-C’s calculations. 

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

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

staff training on income calculation. 

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. 

* Two previously reported metrics, Second Look % Disagree and Second Look % Unable to Determine were combined into this new metric effective Q2 2015.

** New metric effective Q2 2015.
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

27

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 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. 

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

* Two previously reported metrics, Second Look % Disagree and Second Look % Unable to Determine were combined into this new metric effective Q2 2015.

** New metric effective Q2 2015.
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2015

28

Appendix 2: Terms and Methodologies

Average Delinquency at Trial Start:

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

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

of the trial plan.

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio:

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

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

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

counseling under program guidelines.

Disqualification:

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

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

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

options.

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

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

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

Eligible Loans:

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

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

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

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

that exclude them from HAMP. 

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio:

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

income. 

Median Monthly Housing Payment:

Principal and interest payment. Before modification payment is homeowner’s current payment at time of evaluation.t modifications 

on which homeowners lose good standing are subsequently disqualified from the program. This metric
29

Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

Second Look 

Directed Actions

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

Appendix 3: Compliance Criteria Tested

HAMP Solicitation Servicer appropriately solicited borrowers for HAMP and that the 

servicer met the reasonable efforts requirements
30

Appendix 3: Compliance Criteria Tested

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

Re-Default and Loss of Good 

Standing

Directed Actions, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Modifications that are disqualified from HAMP due to Loss of Good 

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

manner

NPV model use/re-coding 

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

Accuracy of NPV inputs Net Present Value 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
31

Appendix 3: Compliance Criteria Tested

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

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 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 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 PostModification 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

Timely mailing of HAFA Short 

Sale notices Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent HAFA Short Sale Notices within the required timeframe
32

Appendix 3: Compliance Criteria Tested

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
33

 Note # Section End Notes 

1 HAMP

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

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

modifications into the HAMP system of record at any time.

2 HAMP

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

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

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

Excludes cancellations and disqualifications pending data corrections and loans otherwise removed 

from servicing portfolios.

3 HAMP

Servicers did not submit 1.9% 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 46.1% and 46.4%. 

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

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

entire amount that may be forgiven.

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

7 Other MHA Programs

Survey data indicates that program to date, 355,626 qualifying first lien modifications have been 

matched with a second lien. Of these matched second liens, approximately 53% are found to be 

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

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

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

second liens decline to participate in 2MP.

8 Servicer

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

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

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

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

10 Servicer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 4: End Notes
34

 State Trial Modifications Started Permanent Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

AK 1,254 712 $479.17 31%

AL 16,607 9,972 $261.52 32%

AR 6,498 3,773 $246.74 32%

AZ 91,609 54,408 $440.81 37%

CA 499,571 343,297 $712.11 37%

CO 31,389 19,936 $406.51 33%

CT 32,198 21,659 $526.60 37%

DC 4,190 2,657 $544.76 32%

DE 7,753 5,068 $407.66 32%

FL 290,359 186,550 $468.21 40%

GA 89,578 55,305 $358.48 36%

HI 8,502 5,638 $793.80 34%

IA 7,084 4,111 $250.07 32%

ID 8,713 5,405 $368.39 33%

IL 121,807 80,201 $502.49 40%

IN 25,960 16,045 $260.03 33%

KS 6,888 4,017 $286.78 33%

KY 10,651 6,546 $264.85 33%

LA 16,355 10,143 $281.06 33%

MA 53,570 36,486 $578.46 35%

MD 76,452 50,408 $563.87 34%

ME 6,853 4,679 $385.30 35%

MI 70,021 43,059 $341.51 37%

MN 36,590 22,716 $418.61 35%

MO 27,454 16,555 $291.47 34%

MS 10,180 6,319 $250.51 33%

MT 2,832 1,643 $396.16 32%

NC 48,427 29,867 $301.70 33%

ND 478 249 $273.66 31%

NE 3,810 2,342 $260.09 33%

NH 10,307 6,911 $464.91 34%

NJ 82,407 54,738 $626.88 37%

NM 8,466 5,272 $345.32 33%

NV 53,358 32,679 $525.22 38%

NY 119,404 80,032 $781.27 39%

OH 58,273 34,346 $289.83 36%

OK 7,510 4,276 $246.01 33%

OR 25,815 16,378 $454.20 34%

PA 58,481 37,545 $342.72 33%

RI 11,158 7,665 $535.01 39%

SC 25,379 15,411 $296.14 33%

SD 1,027 565 $259.65 29%

TN 28,749 17,981 $284.86 34%

TX 80,180 46,271 $282.23 33%

UT 19,029 12,277 $428.67 32%

VA 55,266 35,055 $481.86 32%

VT 2,039 1,440 $364.69 33%

WA 47,973 31,776 $502.72 33%

WI 23,926 15,415 $344.33 36%

WV 3,629 2,151 $304.27 30%

WY 1,209 738 $362.42 30%

PR 5,803 4,576 $286.92 37%

Nationwide* 2,343,069 1,513,295 $483.05 35%

* Includes U.S. Territories

Appendix 5: HAMP Activity by State
35

AK 44.98% 6.8% $1,463.03 $4,166.67 $213,368.59 $856.88 $93.19 $178.31 -$409.31

AL 46.45% 6.8% $869.56 $2,281.06 $119,673.47 $507.92 $48.19 $98.45 -$230.04

AR 45.52% 6.6% $801.46 $2,125.91 $114,542.82 $468.31 $48.77 $100.76 -$201.76

AZ 49.40% 6.4% $1,191.87 $2,806.00 $178,237.00 $668.76 $79.30 $193.26 -$293.15

CA 48.67% 6.1% $1,942.63 $4,680.00 $306,804.74 $1,091.93 $138.32 $317.44 -$440.48

CO 46.38% 6.4% $1,236.53 $3,191.80 $189,102.57 $751.23 $81.39 $181.07 -$282.27

CT 45.41% 6.5% $1,457.49 $4,333.33 $210,563.94 $801.64 $92.68 $203.41 -$389.19

DC 47.92% 6.4% $1,709.01 $4,113.95 $275,123.22 $988.98 $122.33 $269.53 -$373.56

DE 47.03% 6.5% $1,282.25 $3,098.73 $195,324.72 $759.20 $83.61 $175.74 -$302.61

FL 47.57% 6.5% $1,191.82 $3,276.16 $170,680.78 $628.68 $76.01 $171.60 -$334.57

GA 47.37% 6.5% $1,004.68 $2,642.70 $143,703.42 $568.64 $62.32 $140.10 -$270.62

HI 49.04% 6.3% $2,416.78 $5,367.97 $392,422.21 $1,395.51 $175.90 $382.47 -$494.67

IA 44.34% 6.6% $777.68 $2,300.00 $108,438.05 $435.65 $45.46 $95.00 -$203.11

ID 48.53% 6.5% $1,146.06 $2,721.42 $170,552.92 $667.10 $74.61 $165.93 -$276.43

IL 46.94% 6.5% $1,279.73 $3,716.66 $179,223.41 $658.59 $79.82 $181.24 -$373.92

IN 46.02% 6.8% $817.31 $2,162.50 $110,200.57 $462.46 $45.52 $96.32 -$216.33

KS 44.52% 6.6% $894.41 $2,711.56 $125,497.10 $504.13 $51.69 $111.60 -$236.19

KY 45.52% 6.8% $805.92 $2,205.60 $111,681.43 $465.49 $46.66 $97.69 -$210.95

LA 45.48% 6.9% $897.08 $2,563.87 $124,175.18 $506.36 $51.58 $103.76 -$248.29

MA 47.01% 6.4% $1,660.75 $4,336.15 $250,000.00 $937.21 $110.16 $244.92 -$404.65

MD 46.83% 6.4% $1,667.67 $4,325.78 $258,879.28 $956.10 $114.98 $256.32 -$389.52

ME 46.41% 6.6% $1,139.15 $3,029.36 $164,464.02 $637.54 $71.32 $145.67 -$290.87

MI 46.85% 6.5% $956.38 $2,671.00 $129,972.48 $520.36 $55.46 $126.73 -$263.49

MN 46.09% 6.3% $1,204.65 $3,298.00 $178,757.23 $692.50 $77.82 $179.12 -$295.79

MO 45.93% 6.6% $881.01 $2,484.00 $123,679.01 $494.34 $52.12 $110.14 -$241.18

MS 46.29% 6.9% $812.64 $2,225.00 $110,679.67 $454.36 $45.13 $90.82 -$231.17

MT 46.79% 6.4% $1,266.83 $3,256.55 $193,522.27 $741.12 $81.96 $172.74 -$303.01

NC 46.29% 6.5% $950.14 $2,515.02 $134,519.84 $551.03 $57.14 $119.04 -$245.26

ND 42.10% 6.6% $882.50 $2,839.91 $135,117.50 $544.00 $56.31 $118.03 -$192.94

NE 43.78% 6.7% $780.16 $2,489.49 $109,518.57 $460.05 $45.25 $93.69 -$213.12

NH 43.89% 6.4% $1,348.06 $4,159.66 $198,831.86 $772.33 $85.82 $183.36 -$332.98

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

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after All 

Increases

Final Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

State

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I After Mod UPB After Mod Monthly P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Before Mod 

DTI

 Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

Median Values
36

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

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after All 

Increases

Final Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

State

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I After Mod UPB After Mod Monthly P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Before Mod 

DTI

 Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

Median Values

NJ 45.23% 6.4% $1,706.83 $5,237.25 $250,529.64 $905.50 $111.58 $242.47 -$450.41

NM 47.10% 6.5% $1,057.51 $2,742.81 $156,270.04 $626.21 $67.91 $145.77 -$273.20

NV 50.06% 6.3% $1,369.52 $3,129.75 $207,680.17 $757.65 $92.89 $221.39 -$340.15

NY 47.14% 6.4% $2,082.53 $5,691.31 $311,746.54 $1,111.08 $139.98 $304.13 -$549.46

OH 45.38% 6.6% $821.63 $2,397.50 $111,035.52 $458.14 $46.37 $102.61 -$223.11

OK 44.68% 6.9% $777.38 $2,380.05 $106,952.55 $448.36 $43.41 $89.26 -$216.93

OR 46.62% 6.4% $1,323.80 $3,455.80 $206,607.34 $782.86 $91.44 $199.97 -$312.40

PA 45.16% 6.6% $1,088.73 $3,200.00 $152,225.28 $602.39 $64.79 $132.70 -$286.24

RI 47.47% 6.4% $1,363.71 $3,662.45 $196,945.15 $733.92 $87.38 $199.14 -$375.95

SC 46.67% 6.6% $960.76 $2,495.63 $136,959.35 $555.56 $58.01 $122.52 -$244.84

SD 44.25% 6.5% $949.05 $2,720.99 $136,834.86 $528.82 $57.55 $128.11 -$213.59

TN 46.92% 6.9% $880.27 $2,310.16 $119,127.96 $496.88 $49.14 $102.90 -$248.97

TX 43.15% 7.0% $859.86 $2,958.00 $118,760.74 $498.64 $49.48 $101.37 -$237.61

UT 47.50% 6.5% $1,368.20 $3,279.61 $211,248.77 $812.83 $93.41 $210.59 -$309.10

VA 46.62% 6.4% $1,591.92 $4,055.00 $248,613.71 $923.28 $109.10 $242.89 -$334.37

VT 45.99% 6.8% $1,129.60 $3,115.37 $165,660.64 $630.32 $72.12 $154.83 -$294.80

WA 46.44% 6.4% $1,512.27 $3,972.22 $241,149.09 $888.37 $107.21 $232.69 -$337.72

WI 45.10% 6.5% $986.26 $2,991.67 $138,396.36 $545.47 $59.34 $127.78 -$268.62

WV 46.51% 6.6% $1,085.09 $2,682.73 $155,013.29 $629.99 $63.44 $127.81 -$254.33

WY 46.15% 6.5% $1,306.74 $3,223.00 $188,645.47 $804.54 $80.03 $167.27 -$298.39

PR 50.88% 6.4% $772.20 $1,650.00 $103,665.69 $444.34 $44.22 $95.69 -$212.71

Nationwide* 47.27% 6.4% $1,444.08 $3,799.00 $214,358.36 $797.69 $94.47 $210.43 -$349.24

* Includes U.S. Territories
37

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

2009Q3 3,575 10.7% 4.5% 4,406 15.9% 10.7% 4,624 26.0% 21.3% 4,953 32.4% 29.1%

2009Q4 43,621 5.7% 1.9% 47,454 10.2% 6.3% 51,346 20.4% 15.9% 54,533 25.5% 22.4%

2010Q1 123,861 4.3% 1.5% 150,120 10.4% 6.1% 160,992 20.4% 16.1% 165,998 26.0% 22.4%

2010Q2 147,507 5.3% 1.8% 157,113 12.3% 7.5% 173,387 19.5% 16.1% 170,571 27.7% 24.1%

2010Q3 86,183 5.1% 1.9% 95,876 11.1% 7.1% 104,151 18.2% 14.5% 106,118 25.3% 21.9%

2010Q4 58,008 4.6% 1.8% 62,486 8.9% 5.7% 65,108 18.4% 14.5% 66,657 24.0% 21.1%

2011Q1 70,803 2.9% 1.1% 75,819 8.2% 5.1% 79,520 17.0% 13.6% 81,098 22.2% 19.2%

2011Q2 79,804 3.7% 1.3% 89,058 9.4% 5.8% 92,536 16.2% 13.2% 91,808 23.1% 20.1%

2011Q3 80,804 3.7% 1.3% 85,865 8.8% 5.6% 86,831 15.6% 12.3% 86,571 21.8% 18.9%

2011Q4 64,854 3.4% 1.2% 67,371 6.9% 4.4% 67,698 14.7% 11.4% 67,848 19.3% 16.8%

2012Q1 49,264 2.5% 0.9% 50,706 6.8% 4.1% 50,729 14.1% 10.9% 50,122 18.5% 15.8%

2012Q2 43,895 3.0% 1.0% 44,872 7.7% 4.6% 45,151 13.6% 10.9% 44,671 18.9% 16.1%

2012Q3 47,201 3.1% 1.0% 48,874 7.3% 4.6% 49,610 13.0% 10.1% 50,141 17.9% 15.1%

2012Q4 39,217 3.2% 1.0% 41,127 6.3% 3.9% 42,347 12.3% 9.4% 42,611 16.3% 14.0%

2013Q1 39,178 2.2% 0.7% 40,832 6.0% 3.5% 41,953 12.6% 9.6% 42,330 16.6% 13.9%

2013Q2 31,482 2.6% 0.8% 32,956 6.5% 3.9% 33,659 11.8% 9.4% 33,936 16.5% 14.1%

2013Q3 31,880 2.9% 1.0% 33,355 7.0% 4.2% 34,752 12.1% 9.2% 34,553 16.4% 14.0%

2013Q4 27,259 2.9% 1.0% 28,578 6.3% 3.8% 29,861 12.3% 9.5% 29,844 16.0% 13.8%

2014Q1 23,659 2.5% 0.9% 25,549 6.8% 3.9% 26,389 13.1% 10.3% 8,604 15.8% 13.6%

2014Q2 18,999 3.7% 1.1% 19,813 7.8% 5.1% 20,434 13.0% 10.7%

2014Q3 16,977 3.6% 1.3% 17,809 8.0% 5.4% 6,222 12.4% 9.8%

2014Q4 15,136 3.9% 1.5% 16,894 7.1% 4.4%

2015Q1 14,846 2.9% 0.9% 5,529 7.3% 4.3%

2015Q2 5,078 3.5% 1.2%

All 1,163,091 3.9% 1.3% 1,242,462 9.0% 5.5% 1,267,300 16.6% 13.2% 1,232,967 22.6% 19.5%

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

2009Q3 5,056 37.0% 33.7% 5,155 44.1% 41.9% 5,063 50.3% 48.7% 5,048 54.3% 52.7%

2009Q4 55,488 31.6% 28.5% 56,307 39.7% 37.2% 56,078 45.0% 43.2% 55,341 48.9% 47.5%

2010Q1 167,781 31.9% 28.7% 166,046 39.7% 37.4% 165,819 44.6% 42.9% 163,415 48.4% 47.2%

2010Q2 178,681 31.0% 28.7% 174,891 39.2% 37.4% 174,249 43.7% 42.5% 173,072 47.1% 46.1%

2010Q3 106,169 29.5% 26.8% 104,438 37.1% 35.2% 105,057 41.2% 39.8% 41,261 44.8% 43.7%

2010Q4 66,419 29.6% 26.5% 65,932 36.3% 34.2% 65,961 40.4% 38.8%

2011Q1 80,744 27.6% 24.9% 80,896 33.8% 31.9% 80,443 37.9% 36.5%

2011Q2 91,385 27.3% 25.1% 91,462 33.2% 31.6% 90,960 37.1% 36.0%

2011Q3 85,052 25.8% 23.4% 86,800 31.0% 29.2% 30,427 36.5% 35.4%

2011Q4 67,578 23.4% 21.0% 67,678 28.5% 26.8%

2012Q1 50,629 22.5% 20.0% 50,176 27.9% 26.0%

2012Q2 44,878 22.1% 20.0% 44,800 27.0% 25.5%

2012Q3 50,409 20.9% 18.6% 16,840 26.0% 24.5%

2012Q4 42,741 19.9% 17.6%

2013Q1 42,104 19.9% 17.6%

2013Q2 34,066 19.0% 17.2%

2013Q3 11,096 19.3% 17.4%

2013Q4

2014Q1

2014Q2

2014Q3

2014Q4

2015Q1

2015Q2

All 1,180,276 27.2% 24.7% 1,011,421 35.2% 33.3% 774,057 41.8% 40.3% 438,137 47.7% 46.5%

Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

24 36 48 60

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18

HAMP Tier 1
38

Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage

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

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

2012Q4 946 5.4% 1.4% 1,113 9.7% 5.3% 1,177 22.9% 16.6% 1,232 27.2% 22.2%

2013Q1 2,479 4.2% 1.3% 2,700 11.9% 6.5% 2,826 23.5% 17.9% 2,907 29.3% 24.9%

2013Q2 4,102 5.3% 1.5% 4,454 13.8% 7.9% 5,049 21.8% 17.3% 5,151 29.1% 24.5%

2013Q3 11,194 5.9% 2.0% 13,206 13.8% 8.2% 13,623 22.2% 16.7% 13,515 28.9% 24.7%

2013Q4 11,223 5.9% 1.9% 11,791 11.8% 7.2% 12,598 22.1% 17.0% 12,482 26.6% 23.1%

2014Q1 10,519 4.2% 1.4% 11,622 12.2% 6.7% 12,031 21.5% 16.9% 3,896 26.8% 22.9%

2014Q2 10,899 5.5% 1.5% 11,206 12.9% 7.3% 11,311 19.8% 15.6%

2014Q3 9,204 5.8% 2.0% 9,520 12.7% 7.9% 3,572 19.9% 15.0%

2014Q4 11,108 5.7% 1.8% 12,730 11.1% 6.2%

2015Q1 13,136 4.5% 1.2% 5,099 10.7% 5.6%

2015Q2 4,527 4.8% 1.1%

All 89,337 5.3% 1.6% 83,441 12.3% 7.1% 62,187 21.5% 16.6% 39,184 28.0% 23.9%

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

2012Q3 1 100.0% 100.0%

2012Q4 1,241 32.4% 27.6%

2013Q1 2,924 33.8% 30.2%

2013Q2 5,184 32.2% 28.9%

2013Q3 3,701 29.8% 26.6%

2013Q4

2014Q1

2014Q2

2014Q3

2014Q4

2015Q1

2015Q2

All 13,051 31.9% 28.4%

HAMP Tier 2

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18

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. 

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

24 36 48 60
39

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 72 $187.20 32%

Aguadilla-Isabela, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 188 $251.87 36%

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,638 $300.42 37%

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 331 $242.64 31%

Albany, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 236 $349.04 34%

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,822 $359.63 34%

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,452 $333.47 33%

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 172 $243.54 30%

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,309 $400.59 34%

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 150 $218.73 31%

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 145 $259.80 36%

Ames, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 65 $279.04 32%

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 550 $511.05 33%

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 114 $180.26 27%

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 208 $214.23 26%

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,214 $420.54 36%

Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 188 $214.91 30%

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 375 $305.40 34%

Arecibo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 147 $262.06 36%

Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,341 $352.52 33%

Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 566 $306.59 34%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 43,870 $377.19 37%

Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,497 $492.69 38%

Auburn-Opelika, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 266 $286.68 29%

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,031 $262.71 33%

Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,883 $330.50 33%

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,231 $475.06 37%

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 16,882 $471.70 32%

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 387 $306.34 34%

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,852 $612.93 36%

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,421 $263.28 31%

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 442 $266.77 38%

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 281 $230.29 35%

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 352 $218.29 33%

Beckley, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 66 $215.00 35%

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 624 $479.13 34%

Bend-Redmond, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,264 $527.24 37%

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 157 $288.99 27%

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 271 $248.02 36%

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,725 $280.88 32%

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area 52 $338.36 34%

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 182 $299.30 30%

Bloomington, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 157 $348.21 41%

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 224 $257.42 30%

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

Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 45 $220.88 34%

Boise City, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,035 $383.27 34%

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 25,439 $625.61 36%

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 652 $481.35 34%

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 180 $243.98 34%

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 995 $470.79 31%

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,702 $706.90 40%

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 568 $234.38 35%

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 264 $328.16 33%

Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,650 $260.11 35%

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 434 $260.60 32%

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA
40

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area 440 $420.03 35%

California-Lexington Park, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 343 $562.18 32%

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,303 $263.68 35%

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,209 $475.51 40%

Cape Girardeau, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 113 $231.07 31%

Carbondale-Marion, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 57 $265.86 44%

Carson City, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 406 $525.09 37%

Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 132 $345.85 29%

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 346 $252.35 32%

Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 258 $345.84 32%

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 214 $244.54 31%

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 173 $219.18 32%

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,155 $353.01 33%

Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,099 $315.16 33%

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 629 $390.86 31%

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,446 $275.31 34%

Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 147 $276.06 27%

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 77,369 $514.46 41%

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,156 $456.58 34%

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,248 $309.44 35%

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 264 $221.09 30%

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 236 $256.26 32%

Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,683 $307.17 37%

Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 670 $414.03 33%

College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 133 $220.10 27%

Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,089 $390.74 33%

Columbia, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 173 $244.41 32%

Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,647 $267.45 32%

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 773 $272.68 33%

Columbus, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 126 $202.80 29%

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,589 $321.32 36%

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 392 $247.71 32%

Corvallis, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 110 $347.65 26%

Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 868 $422.33 36%

Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 147 $246.67 32%

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 15,565 $297.94 33%

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 502 $261.01 35%

Danville, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 61 $208.42 39%

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 53 $172.03 23%

Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 398 $352.98 35%

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 583 $243.28 36%

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,131 $263.00 36%

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 188 $230.60 29%

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 100 $206.32 35%

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,819 $392.02 38%

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 12,191 $407.47 33%

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,483 $274.05 32%

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 25,429 $376.48 39%

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 193 $217.68 31%

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 928 $398.17 30%

Dubuque, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 111 $266.07 37%

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 698 $284.63 33%

Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,392 $322.44 34%

East Stroudsburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,251 $493.36 41%

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 246 $287.35 32%

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,519 $437.68 35%
41

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,350 $247.90 33%

Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 143 $240.05 30%

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 617 $257.50 33%

Elmira, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 118 $260.59 39%

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 391 $239.59 38%

Eugene, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,193 $392.03 33%

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 444 $209.25 31%

Fairbanks, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 67 $372.60 26%

Fajardo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 15 $208.03 27%

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 183 $278.07 31%

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 119 $290.47 26%

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 671 $237.45 34%

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,235 $286.41 33%

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 329 $530.03 34%

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,824 $324.02 37%

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 511 $226.08 32%

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $213.49 34%

Fond du Lac, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 174 $291.81 34%

Fort Collins, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 875 $407.10 31%

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 252 $208.81 30%

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 905 $241.33 35%

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,868 $480.59 37%

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 177 $222.75 30%

Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 720 $334.68 35%

Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,145 $331.39 36%

Gettysburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 252 $443.17 36%

Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 367 $329.66 36%

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 172 $239.14 33%

Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 63 $228.97 30%

Grand Island, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 35 $241.89 34%

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 576 $415.44 33%

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,038 $286.75 34%

Grants Pass, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 332 $536.31 40%

Great Falls, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 78 $259.62 29%

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,118 $358.20 30%

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 597 $346.02 38%

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,600 $284.59 33%

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 369 $274.11 33%

Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,251 $265.45 32%

Guayama, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 42 $177.46 34%

Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 764 $275.96 35%

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,651 $427.52 32%

Hammond, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 218 $296.64 35%

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 927 $424.50 34%

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,149 $310.67 32%

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 254 $407.98 35%

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,764 $454.17 36%

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 242 $236.68 32%

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,070 $243.85 31%

Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 592 $521.63 42%

Hinesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 126 $253.44 32%

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

Homosassa Springs, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 445 $364.41 42%

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 786 $640.20 26%

Hot Springs, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 146 $315.46 36%

Houma-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 273 $240.08 31%
42

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 16,690 $285.34 34%

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 319 $234.88 34%

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 654 $238.73 30%

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 305 $262.63 26%

Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,582 $275.72 32%

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

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 53 $343.54 34%

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 636 $285.83 36%

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,759 $250.47 32%

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 310 $236.25 34%

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,233 $371.44 35%

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 172 $258.27 28%

Janesville-Beloit, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 590 $264.05 34%

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 157 $211.37 30%

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 263 $251.91 32%

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 108 $222.99 32%

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 81 $242.10 32%

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 242 $199.60 31%

Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 905 $1,058.95 40%

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 869 $305.70 37%

Kankakee, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 439 $343.96 36%

Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,978 $311.79 34%

Kennewick-Richland, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 373 $272.83 31%

Killeen-Temple, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 274 $218.20 29%

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 363 $237.73 33%

Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 983 $503.99 38%

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,806 $264.42 31%

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 233 $222.10 33%

La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 149 $263.54 29%

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 81 $207.52 25%

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 595 $239.39 30%

Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 173 $283.07 37%

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 279 $232.72 32%

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,284 $408.03 36%

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,546 $368.94 36%

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,124 $306.45 30%

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,559 $314.60 36%

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 527 $287.49 36%

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 358 $325.30 30%

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,794 $527.45 38%

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 161 $319.99 32%

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 102 $214.03 33%

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 266 $296.66 30%

Lewiston, ID-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 97 $269.66 26%

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 339 $334.68 34%

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 830 $297.53 34%

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 208 $252.38 40%

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 376 $260.80 32%

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,177 $244.48 31%

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 212 $319.71 28%

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 145 $221.17 32%

Longview, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 424 $376.63 33%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 84,746 $845.21 40%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 23,617 $677.22 31%

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,282 $266.65 33%

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 171 $227.99 31%
43

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 460 $248.76 28%

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 886 $279.23 37%

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,686 $509.75 38%

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,220 $394.42 34%

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,176 $476.08 33%

Manhattan, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 64 $330.37 32%

Mankato-North Mankato, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 153 $303.73 30%

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 314 $237.93 34%

Mayaguez, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 82 $229.26 38%

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,228 $250.77 34%

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,243 $462.50 35%

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,417 $296.78 36%

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,464 $529.34 37%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 79,363 $542.23 42%

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 352 $252.26 33%

Midland, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 99 $279.46 38%

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 68 $252.69 29%

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,951 $356.99 37%

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 18,669 $450.18 36%

Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 254 $410.55 31%

Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,234 $255.56 35%

Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,697 $565.81 37%

Monroe, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 225 $219.01 28%

Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 754 $354.54 35%

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 851 $233.79 29%

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 49 $384.61 38%

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 268 $258.81 32%

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 494 $506.12 36%

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 186 $201.37 32%

Muskegon, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 616 $244.76 37%

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,786 $386.37 36%

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,135 $834.06 36%

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,467 $611.42 42%

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,179 $311.88 33%

New Bern, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 118 $348.31 42%

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,693 $476.13 36%

New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,345 $331.69 35%

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 108,642 $805.05 40%

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 489 $274.68 34%

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,379 $473.29 39%

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,448 $481.71 37%

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,515 $359.55 37%

Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 589 $472.07 33%

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 59 $205.41 30%

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,835 $360.30 29%

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,876 $258.49 33%

Olympia-Tumwater, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,055 $439.00 32%

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,784 $272.21 34%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,969 $456.41 39%

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 278 $277.74 35%

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 124 $195.49 32%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,560 $837.76 36%

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,591 $400.35 38%

Palm Coast, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 364 $334.05 28%

Panama City, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 642 $386.81 36%

Parkersburg-Vienna, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 104 $184.53 29%
44

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $215.69 26%

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,702 $307.11 34%

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 454 $225.89 34%

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 28,618 $398.99 33%

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 42,851 $459.04 37%

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 81 $213.64 32%

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,360 $266.26 35%

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 243 $329.84 33%

Pocatello, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 169 $255.62 31%

Ponce, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 189 $241.81 38%

Port St. Lucie, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,246 $460.43 39%

Portland-South Portland, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,565 $444.73 35%

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,339 $480.34 35%

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,634 $497.21 31%

Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,344 $443.65 36%

Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,079 $535.61 38%

Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,572 $460.24 32%

Pueblo, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 620 $264.67 34%

Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,255 $441.50 41%

Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 752 $355.81 36%

Raleigh, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,571 $340.92 32%

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 152 $322.53 34%

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,402 $337.73 33%

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,146 $448.55 34%

Reno, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,988 $526.35 36%

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,822 $367.96 32%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 67,692 $637.50 37%

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 755 $274.27 31%

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 415 $328.33 33%

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,714 $264.19 36%

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,431 $321.07 37%

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 387 $246.04 34%

Rome, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 185 $237.07 31%

Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 22,844 $610.50 36%

Saginaw, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 465 $263.27 36%

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,656 $383.99 34%

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,449 $871.10 40%

Salisbury, MD-DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,434 $422.68 35%

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,794 $422.52 33%

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 52 $182.47 26%

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,419 $252.99 32%

San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 24,303 $761.36 36%

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 29,530 $871.80 38%

San German, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 83 $236.24 34%

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,488 $960.48 37%

San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,746 $299.04 37%

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,562 $769.00 36%

Sandusky, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 71 $217.31 27%

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 563 $593.42 30%

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,517 $978.54 38%

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 625 $517.55 35%

Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,097 $771.72 40%

Santa Rosa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,086 $807.08 37%

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,321 $320.87 34%

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,438 $284.34 36%

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 20,460 $558.84 34%
45

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,140 $404.87 38%

Sebring, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 335 $404.23 43%

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 221 $276.38 31%

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 166 $233.69 32%

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 807 $238.79 31%

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 195 $325.43 35%

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 196 $240.79 36%

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 248 $227.36 26%

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,012 $254.66 35%

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 883 $245.96 32%

Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,617 $326.85 32%

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 199 $244.10 36%

Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,770 $363.33 34%

Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 768 $262.65 33%

Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 344 $257.65 38%

St. Cloud, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 493 $326.08 32%

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,048 $535.84 37%

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 187 $257.40 37%

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,152 $300.68 35%

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 144 $365.57 35%

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 171 $379.25 36%

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV MSA 49 $136.29 22%

Stockton-Lodi, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,483 $650.40 38%

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 212 $236.42 35%

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 803 $254.50 34%

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,317 $330.39 31%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 22,725 $406.15 38%

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 184 $223.71 38%

Texarkana, TX-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 101 $198.15 29%

The Villages, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $417.54 42%

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,201 $259.57 35%

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 296 $221.76 29%

Trenton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,706 $486.51 37%

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,092 $365.89 35%

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,503 $249.79 33%

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 365 $286.97 32%

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 229 $307.69 35%

Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,013 $819.09 34%

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 368 $256.00 36%

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 206 $281.43 32%

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,442 $726.24 36%

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 44 $238.42 33%

Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 751 $359.35 35%

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,171 $392.71 32%

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,884 $423.28 36%

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 192 $202.42 31%

Walla Walla, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 79 $353.43 35%

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 331 $275.85 33%

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 48,973 $640.19 35%

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 219 $206.19 32%

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 46 $218.36 29%

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 195 $300.58 37%

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 95 $241.60 37%

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 301 $363.29 30%

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 123 $171.48 30%

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 65 $159.33 28%
46

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 818 $240.25 34%

Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 159 $210.76 30%

Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,148 $379.64 34%

Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 824 $455.94 31%

Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,821 $273.50 33%

Worcester, MA-CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,650 $506.74 37%

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 417 $278.63 31%

Yauco, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 5 $188.51 29%

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,713 $367.31 32%

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,329 $256.14 37%

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,440 $500.35 36%

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,208 $338.91 35%