Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT 

THROUGH THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014
Nearly 2.3 Million Homeowner Assistance Actions have taken place under Making 

Home Affordable (MHA) programs

2

MHA AT-A-GLANCE

1MP

Q4: 60K

PTD: 1.8M

See Page 4

FOURTH QUARTER 2014 SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Treasury recently published a research paper analyzing the performance of HAMP modifications to better 

understand the key factors affecting their performance. The analysis supports the proposition that HAMP 

modifications have a better probability of success than similar loans that are either not modified or modified 

outside of HAMP. While the higher success rate of HAMP modifications is partly attributable to their greater 

amount of payment reduction, the analysis found that HAMP modifications still perform better even after 

controlling for modification terms, including payment reduction. 

2MP

Q4: 3K

 PTD: 145K

See Page 13

HAFA

Q4: 18K

PTD: 341K

See Page 14

UP

 Q4: .67K

PTD: 42K

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 FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014

(Months of October, November and December)

See page 18 for additional information and detailed results for this quarter.
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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

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

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

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

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) please visit its website.

3

Table of Contents

MHA PROGRAM UPDATES 4

HAMP PROGRAM RESULTS:

HAMP Summary 5

HAMP Modification Characteristics 6

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 7

Performance of Permanent HAMP Tier 1 Modifications 8-9

Homeowners with Disqualified Modifications 10

Treasury’s Hardest Hit State Programs 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

End Notes A-3

HAMP Activity by State A-4

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

HAMP Tier 1 Performance Data by Vintage A-6

HAMP Activity by MSA A-7
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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

Program-to-Date Q4 2014 QoQ % Change

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started 1,755,572 60,266 3%

HAMP Tier 1 1,363,468 17,946 -8%

HAMP Tier 2 84,988 13,805 40%

GSE Standard Modifications (SAI) 236,268 12,970 -14%

Treasury FHA and RD HAMP 70,848 15,545 11%

2MP Modifications Started 144,674 2,977 -33%

HAFA Transactions Completed 341,154 17,867 -16%

UP Forbearance Plans Started 42,142 671 -18%

Cumulative Activity 2,283,542 81,781 -4%

MHA Program Updates

4

*Derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association Quarterly National Delinquency Survey

• In June 2014, Treasury issued guidance to servicers that expanded the eligibility for homeowners with FHAinsured loans for performance incentives under Treasury FHA-HAMP. This expansion aligned Treasury’s policy 

with policies previously issued by FHA for FHA-HAMP, which resulted in an increase in Treasury FHA-HAMP 

modifications, as noted in this report.

• For the fourth quarter of 2014, servicers either showed sustained performance or a slight decrease in 

performance from the prior quarter. One servicer earned three stars - the highest rating - for each 

compliance metric, but was rated as needing “moderate improvement” due to lack of progress in 

implementing previously identified improvements. This quarter’s results indicate that some servicers need 

to improve accuracy and timeliness of identification and reporting of defaulted HAMP modifications.

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014

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 Fourth Quarter 2014

HAMP Summary

Trial

Modifications

All Trials Started1 2,279,407

 Tier 1 2,169,866

 Tier 2 109,541

Active Trials 40,486

Trial Modifications Cancelled Since Verified Income Requirement* 91,108

Permanent 

Modifications

All Permanent Modifications Started 1,448,456

Permanent Modifications Disqualified (Cumulative)** 439,323

Active Permanent Modifications 968,202

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, 699,357 trials were cancelled, for a 

cumulative 790,465 trials cancelled program-to-date. 

** Does not include 40,927 loans paid off and 4 loans withdrawn.

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

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

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

• 22% were referred to foreclosure.

Outcome for Homeowners Who Do Not Receive a HAMP Modification

5%

2%

33%

25%

13%

4%

18%

Status of Homeowners Not Accepted for a HAMP Trial Modification or 

Those Whose HAMP Trial Modification was Cancelled

Action Pending

Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 

Borrower Current / Loan Payoff

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure Starts

Foreclosure Completions

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

Select HAMP Modification Characteristics 

6

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

at approximately $32.7 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 44.0% 31.0% -13.5 pct pts

 Tier 2 28.2% 21.2% -6.4 pct pts

 All 43.4% 31.0% -12.9 pct pts

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 68.2% 51.2% -13.8 pct pts

 Tier 2 44.1% 36.7% -6.5 pct pts

 All 66.8% 50.1% -13.1 pct pts

Median Monthly Housing Payment

 Tier 1 $1,390.87 $820.06 ($501.33)

 Tier 2 $1,065.11 $704.05 ($329.95)

 All $1,371.99 $813.34 ($487.60)

Modification Steps for Permanent Modifications

Modification Step Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Interest Rate Reduction 95.9% 73.8% 94.6%

Term Extension 59.2% 74.7% 60.1%

Principal Forbearance 30.5% 32.2% 30.6%

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:

• 24% were previously in a HAMP Tier 1 trial or 

permanent modification.

• 13% were previously evaluated for HAMP Tier 1 

and did not meet eligibility requirements.

• 6% were non-owner-occupied properties. 

Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Median Monthly Gross 

Income $3,913 $5,110 $3,970 

Median Credit Score 565 559 565

Median Property Value $176,670 $144,000 $175,000 

Additional HAMP Tier 2 Characteristics

Homeowner Characteristics
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the final interest rate increase is $212.

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 

* As of December 2014. 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

180,000

Q3

2014

Q4

2014

Q1

2015

Q2

2015

Q3

2015

Q4

2015

Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3

2016

Q4

2016

Q1

2017

Q2

2017

Q3

2017

Q4

2017

Q1

2018

Q2

2018

Q3

2018

Q4

2018

Q1

2019

Q2

2019

Q3

2019

Q4

2019

Number of Loans

Number of Interest Rate Increases by Quarter*

First Increase Second Increase Third Increase Fourth Increase

7

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

Performance of HAMP Tier 1 Permanent Modifications 

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

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

loans active in month six that disqualified by month nine.

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

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

# Months 

Post 

Modification 

% of Disqualified Modifications3

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 ALL

3 2.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.4%

6 6.7% 6.7% 5.3% 4.3% 3.9% 3.9% 5.0% 4.8% 5.6%

12 16.3% 15.6% 12.7% 10.4% 9.5% 9.7% 13.3%

18 22.9% 22.7% 18.9% 15.3% 14.0% 19.8%

24 28.8% 28.0% 23.8% 19.1% 17.4% 25.2%

30 33.3% 32.6% 27.3% 22.8% 29.9%

36 37.6% 36.6% 30.0% 25.9% 34.1%

42 41.1% 39.3% 33.8% 38.0%

48 43.6% 41.6% 37.0% 41.6%

54 46.0% 44.2% 44.4%

60 47.9% 45.4% 46.9%

Performance of HAMP modifications has improved over time. For modifications seasoned 24 months, 17.4% of 

modifications started in 2013 have disqualified, compared to 28.8% of modifications started in 2009. Compared with 

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

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

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

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

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Month

6

Month

9

Month

12

Month

15

Month

18

Month

21

Month

24

Month

27

Month

30

Month

33

Month

36

Month

39

Month

42

Month

45

Month

48

Month

51

Month

54

Month

57

Month

60

3-Month Re-default Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

Conditional Re-default Rate by Modification Year

(% of Active Loans) 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

8

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

The most significant factors driving HAMP Tier 1 modification performance are the amount of the reduction in the monthly 

mortgage payment, 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 15.2% of modifications with a monthly 

payment reduction greater than 50% have been 

disqualified due to missing three payments, compared to a 

disqualification rate of 39.7% 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 23.0% redefault rate in the subsequent 24 months, compared to 

29.0% for homeowners whose delinquency was between 

121 and 210 days at trial start.

Homeowners with credit scores between 580-619 at the 

time of modification experienced a 20.3% re-default rate 

in the subsequent 24 months, compared to a rate of 

10.7% for homeowners whose credit scores were above 

660.

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

<=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

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

9
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

Homeowners with Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications

10

10%

5%

13%

35%

13%

9%

15%

Status of Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications 

Action Pending

Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 

Borrower Current / Loan Pay off

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure Starts

Foreclosure Completions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

Treasury’s Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) program provides $7.6 billion to 18 states and the District of Columbia to develop 

locally tailored programs to assist struggling homeowners in their communities. 

Unlike the MHA programs which are national in scope, the Hardest Hit Fund sought to address state-by-state differences in 

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

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

and stabilize housing markets.

Since then, HFAs and Treasury have worked together to develop and implement 73 programs that are making a difference 

for homeowners throughout these hardest hit states. As housing markets, local economies, and industry dynamics evolve, 

Treasury, HFAs, servicers, and other stakeholders share best practices. HFAs continue to refine programs and outreach 

campaigns in order to increase the number of homeowners assisted and improve the quality of assistance provided to 

homeowners. HFAs combine HHF with HAMP when possible, and they engage housing counseling agencies to help 

homeowners access HAMP and other types of loan modifications, or other long-term foreclosure prevention solutions.

Source: CoreLogic Home Price Index Report, December 2014 (HPI for Single Family including Distressed)

How Do Treasury’s Hardest Hit Fund Programs Interact with MHA?

• Every MHA homeowner Outreach Event in an HHF state included representatives from HHF-participating HFAs, who 

typically took applications from homeowners on site.

• The Homeowner’s HOPE HotlineTM includes information about HHF assistance in its scripting. When a homeowner from 

an HHF state contacts the Hotline and is in need of assistance, he or she receives MHA and HHF assistance information 

and a referral to the state’s HFA.

• Treasury provides guidance to servicers regarding HHF – HAMP interaction.

• Treasury requires HFAs to describe how HHF and HAMP interact in their program term sheets.

• HFAs have engaged housing counseling agencies and other means to help homeowners access HAMP since HHF’s 

inception.

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

Treasury’s Hardest Hit State Assistance Programs: Interaction with HAMP 

11

Change in Housing Price Index (HPI) 

Decline from Peak to Q4 2014:

(20%) or more

(15%)-(19.9%)

(10%)-(14.9%)

(5%)-(9.9%)

0%-(4.9%)

Indicates HHF 

State

H
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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 172,585 48,714 221,299

Active Permanent Modifications 135,281 38,404 173,685

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications Started5 $68,300 $54,713 $64,500 

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications Started (%)6 32.3% 18.0% 30.4%

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Reduced on 

Permanent Modifications Started5 $15,466,767,271 $3,250,608,493 $18,717,375,764 

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 117.7% 145.1%

- After Modification 115.0% 113.1%

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

- Front-End DTI 43.4% 43.2%

- Back-End DTI 66.8% 55.7%

40% 42%

46%

53%

61%

65%

71%

77% 77%

71% 73% 76%

73%

70% 69% 71% 69%

84%

71%

65% 60%

65%

52%

60% 59% 59% 65%

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

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 Fourth Quarter 2014

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)* 144,674

Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien Extinguishments 39,417

Active Second Lien Modifications** 84,927

Active Second Lien Modifications Involving Partial Lien Extinguishments 10,874

* Includes 5,516 loans that have a qualifying first lien GSE Standard Modification.

** Includes 7,351 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 37,676 5,749

CitiMortgage 18,579 3,051

JPMorgan Chase 40,687 2,421

Nationstar Mortgage 4,933 278

Wells Fargo Bank 22,203 3,467

Other Servicers 20,596 1,728

Total 144,674 16,694

Median Monthly Payment Reduction:

Second lien official modifications

Reduction on second lien only $153 

Combined first and second lien reduction $763 

% of total monthly payment 41%

Second lien full extinguishments

Combined first and second lien reduction $996 

% of total monthly payment 51%

Debt Extinguishment:

HAMP homeowners receiving partial or full extinguishment

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Extinguished $3.0B

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 Fourth Quarter 2014

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 37%

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 $279,389 

Median Sales Price $165,000 

Median Debt Relief $126,235 

Median Debt Relief as % of UPB 47%

Total Debt Relief (cumulative) $23.9B

% of HAFA transactions completed that included 

release of a homeowner’s subordinate liens 41%

Total subordinate liens released (cumulative) $441M

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 at least $3,000* in relocation assistance at closing.

*Note: Beginning in February 2015, this assistance was increased to $10,000.

Private Portfolio GSE Total

Short Sale 123,520 44,988 135,159 303,667

Deed-in-Lieu 4,652 3,266 29,569 37,487

Total Transactions 

Completed 128,172 48,254 164,728 341,154

14
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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 42,142

UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required 35,818

UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required 6,324

UP Activity by State

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

California 25%

Florida 7%

Illinois 5%

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

4%

1%

2%

17%

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 Paid Off

Other*

15
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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. 102,694 2,468 6,292 37,676 47,788

CitiMortgage, Inc. 55,343 4,032 4,596 18,579 1,578

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 186,503 1,711 25,403 40,687 36,454

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 136,806 10,022 8,775 4,933 6,838

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 260,041 34,594 73,794 N/A 18,543

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 76,773 10,343 12,108 N/A 14,446

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 195,985 7,085 29,674 22,203 32,207

Other Servicers 349,323 14,733 11,943 20,596 18,572

Total 1,363,468 84,988 172,585 144,674 176,426

As of December 2014, there are 125 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. 40,666 45,976 18,520 105,162

CitiMortgage, Inc. 31,715 8,484 19,176 59,375

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 86,374 59,009 42,831 188,214

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 81,965 60,691 4,172 146,828

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 55,693 216,776 22,166 294,635

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 670 79,821 6,625 87,116

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 79,620 42,403 81,047 203,070

Other Servicers 261,481 47,310 55,265 364,056

Total 638,184 560,470 249,802 1,448,456
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

staff training on servicer procedures and program guidelines. 

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

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

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

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

servicers participating in the program.

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

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

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

improvement in servicer performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transactions pursuant to HAFA. 

Making Home Affordable Servicer Assessments

17
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

Improvement Needed Servicer Name

Minor

Bank of America, N.A.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Moderate

CitiMortgage, Inc.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC*

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Substantial None

4th Quarter 2014 Servicer Assessment Summary Results

The Determination Process: Results of the Data

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences for Servicers

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

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

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

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

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

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

18

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

required for a determination of minor improvement. The assessments provided in this report are based on the results of compliance 

reviews completed by MHA-C with respect to the fourth quarter of 2014. Ocwen has reported that certain letters to borrowers were 

erroneously dated. Treasury continues to review any impact of this matter on MHA programs.
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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

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

tests that did not have a desired outcome.

Compliance Metrics Overview 

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

5.0%



Second Look % Disagree 

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did 

not concur with servicer's MHA determination 

for applicable programs

2.0%



Second Look % Unable to Determine

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C 

was not able to conclude on the servicer's MHA 

determination for applicable programs

2.0%

 Homeowner 

Evaluation and 

Assistance

Assesses whether 

servicer correctly 

evaluates homeowners' 

eligibility for MHA 

programs and 

accurately 

communicates 

decisions. 



Income Calculation Error % 

Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income 

calculation differs from the servicer's by more 

than 5% for applicable programs

2.0%



Non-Approval Notice % Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did 

not concur with completion and accuracy of the 

notices sent to homeowners communicating 

reasons for non-approval, in accordance with 

MHA guidelines

5.0%

 Program 

Management and 

Reporting

Assesses whether the 

servicer has effective 

program management 

and submits timely and 

accurate program 

reports and 

information.



Incentive Payment Data Errors 

Average percentage of differences in calculated 

incentives resulting from data discrepancies 

between servicer files and the MHA system of 

record for applicable programs

2.0%



Disqualified Modification % 

Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did 

not concur with servicer's processing of 

defaulted HAMP modifications, in accordance 

with MHA guidelines

5.0%
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

Servicer Single Point 

of Contact

Second Look 

Disagree

Second Look 

Unable to 

Determine

Income 

Calculation 

Error 

NonApproval 

Notice Noncompliance

Incentive 

Payment 

Data Errors 

Disqualified 

Modification 

Noncompliance

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

Bank of 

America, N.A.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8%

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

CitiMortgage,

Inc.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 3.0% 4.7% 0.6% 8.8%

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

JP Morgan 

Chase Bank, 

N.A.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

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

Nationstar 

Mortgage LLC

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 3.0% 2.3% 0.2% 6.8%

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

Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 3.3% 0.6% 3.8%

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

Select 

Portfolio 

Servicing, Inc.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% 0.8%

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

Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A.

Servicer 

Result 6.7% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% 4.5% 0.8% 6.8%

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

20

4th Quarter Compliance Results
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

Servicer 

Q1 

2011

Q2 

2011

Q3 

2011

Q4 

2011

Q1 

2012

Q2 

2012

Q3 

2012

Q4 

2012

Q1 

2013

Q2 

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2013

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2014

Second Look % Disagree

Bank of 

America

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

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

JPMorgan 

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

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

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

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

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

Second Look Unable to Determine %

Bank of 

America

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

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

JPMorgan 

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

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

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

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

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

Income Calculation Error %

Bank of 

America

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

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

JPMorgan 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance Results Trending

21
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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

Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

# Days

Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014

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

Q1’14 722 550 672 1,183 2,969 1,733 1,001

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

Q3’14 495 411 351 1,378 943 504 672

Q4’14 214 390 304 1,149 548 362 651

Average # Aged Trials
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2014

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

Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014

Missing Permanent Modification Status Reports (%)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc. JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.

% Missing

Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014

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
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 December 2014. 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.
25

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Treasury FHA-HAMP Program Notes: 

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

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

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

2MP Program Notes:

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

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

reflected in “Other Servicers.”

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

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

principal balance is higher.

HAFA Program Notes:

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

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

2014. 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.
26

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Servicer Assessment Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for transparency about mortgage servicer efforts to assist homeowners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

perform compliance reviews of (1) mortgage loans or activities that fall outside of MHA, (2) GSE loans or (3) those loans insured 

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

servicer’s overall mortgage servicing operation. 
27

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 % Disagree:

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

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

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

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

Second Look % Unable to Determine:

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

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

modification.

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

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

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

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

appropriate corrective actions.

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. 
28

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Non-Approval Notice % Noncompliance:

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

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

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

guidelines. 

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

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

Incentive Payment Data Errors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

places in the program system of record. 

Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance:

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

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

modifications, in accordance with MHA guidelines. 

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

the status of improperly disqualified modifications and reporting the corrected data to the program system of record.
29

MHA-C Compliance Criteria Tested

Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

Second Look 

Directed Actions

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

HAMP modification exists on the first lien

Initial Packages sent after 

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

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

assignment letter to potentially eligible borrowers following RPC

Content of Borrower Notices Second Look Borrower Notices contained required information

Timely Acknowledgement 

Letter sent Core Eligibility/Incentive

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

Acknowledgement Letter to the borrower within the required time 

frame

Accuracy of Incomplete 

Information Notice (IIN) sent, 

where applicable

Second Look

Upon receiving part of a HAMP Package but not all required 

information, servicers sent an Incomplete Information Notice to the 

borrower listing documentation still needed

Timely mailing of IIN, where 

applicable Second Look Servicer sent Incomplete Information Notices within required time 

frame

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

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

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

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

sent within 10 days of decision

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

Administrator

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

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

receiving a HAMP modification 

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

Completeness of full 

Underwriting package

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive Servicer obtained a completed package to underwrite modification

Accuracy of Income 

calculation Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer correctly calculated borrower income

Accurate HAMP Eligibility 

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

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

payment terms

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

modification 

Property Valuation (AVM, 

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

HAMP Solicitation Servicers appropriately solicited borrowers for HAMP and that the 

servicer met the reasonable efforts requirements

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes
30

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Accuracy of Trial Period Plan 

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

modification

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

Re-Default and Loss of Good 

Standing

Directed Actions, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Modifications that are disqualified from HAMP due to Loss of Good 

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

manner

NPV model use/re-coding 

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

Treasury NPV model

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

Accuracy of Permanent 

Modification Agreement Core Eligibility/Incentive

Permanent Modification Agreement includes correct terms including 

payment amount, interest rate, unpaid principal balance, and 

forbearance amount

Waiver of Late Charges & 

other Fees at conversion from 

TPP to Perm. Mod.

Core Eligibility/Incentive

At time of conversion to permanent modification, servicer has waived 

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

original loan

Application of Unapplied 

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

of Trial Plan

Accurate 2MP Eligibility 

Assessment

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately evaluated borrower for second lien modification

Accurate calculation of 2MP 

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

Timely mailing and accuracy 

of 2MP Non-Approval Notice, 

where applicable

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

modifications within specified time frame 

Accurate HAFA Eligibility 

Assessment

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Servicer reviews HAFA applications and makes appropriate eligibility 

decision 

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

HAFA short sale or deed-in-lieu

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

Program Management and Reporting

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

HAMP Incentive 

Compensation - Servicer, 

Borrower & Investor

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

Application of Borrower 

Incentives Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately applies borrower incentives to unpaid principal balance within 30 days of receipt

Timely and accurate 120-Day 

Notice of Interest Rate 

Increase

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

120 and 240 days prior to rate increase

Timely and accurate 60-Day 

Notice of Interest Rate 

Increase

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

between 60 and 75 days prior to rate increase

Accuracy of step rate 

increases Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately calculates and implements HAMP rate increases
31

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Appropriate timing on 

reporting of denial to IR2 (i.e. 

at least 30 days after letter 

sent)

Second Look Servicer reports HAMP denials to the Program Administrator in 

accordance with program guidelines

Accurate reporting of HAMP 

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

Administrator including all data used in calculating incentives

2MP Incentive Compensation - 

Servicer, Borrower & Investor Core Eligibility/Incentive Incentive compensation for second lien modifications is accurate

Accurate reporting of 2MP 

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

with respect to second lien modifications

HAFA Incentive 

Compensation - Servicer, 

Borrower & Investor

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

loan file documentation

Accuracy of reporting of HAFA 

activity to IR2 Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicers report accurate modification data to Program Administrator with respect to HAFA short sale and deed-in-lieu transactions

Re-default and Loss of Good 

Standing

Directed Actions, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Modifications that are disqualified from HAMP due to Loss of Good 

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

manner

Pre-Foreclosure affirmation 

provided by Relationship 

Manager (SPOC)

Directed Actions SPOC provided affirmation that all available loss mitigation options 

had been exhausted

Accuracy of Foreclosure 

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

Certification provided to 

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

explored and all other loss mitigation options had been exhausted
32

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.
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 11,366 OMRs for modifications that have aged up to or through 60 months, 

or 1.2% of the total required OMRs in the current reporting period. In addition, reported loan counts 

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

OMRs reflect either a current payment status or the maximum number of missed payments based on 

the most recently submitted OMR, the re-default rate for permanent modifications that have aged 

60 months may range between 46.5% and 46.9%. 

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

Based on survey data as reported by servicers. One important factor affecting the size of the 

population of second liens eligible for 2MP modifications is that servicer participation in 2MP is 

voluntary. Under 2MP, participating servicers are notified when a match is found between one of 

their second liens and a qualifying first lien modification. Survey data indicates that program to 

date, 358,248 qualifying first lien modifications have been matched with a second lien. Of these 

matched second liens, approximately 55% are found to be ineligible for a 2MP modification. The 

most common reasons for ineligibility are: cancellation or failure of a trial or permanent first lien 

HAMP modification; extinguishment of the second lien prior to evaluation for 2MP; failure of a 2MP 

trial modification; and some homeowners with eligible second liens decline to participate in 2MP.

8 Servicer

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

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

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

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

10 Servicer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 3: End Notes
34

 State Trial Modifications Started Permanent Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

AK 1,229 685 $477.13 31%

AL 15,935 9,323 $261.55 31%

AR 6,243 3,557 $247.48 31%

AZ 90,592 53,325 $441.84 37%

CA 490,436 333,814 $716.72 37%

CO 30,758 19,262 $407.92 33%

CT 30,851 20,279 $529.40 37%

DC 4,053 2,526 $549.62 32%

DE 7,474 4,778 $409.87 32%

FL 282,844 178,465 $471.49 40%

GA 87,362 53,016 $360.61 36%

HI 8,267 5,402 $795.58 34%

IA 6,888 3,903 $247.67 32%

ID 8,539 5,229 $368.39 33%

IL 118,555 76,773 $507.26 40%

IN 24,980 15,053 $259.13 33%

KS 6,645 3,778 $288.10 32%

KY 10,222 6,093 $264.59 33%

LA 15,635 9,433 $283.23 32%

MA 52,083 34,956 $582.48 35%

MD 73,878 47,821 $568.26 34%

ME 6,620 4,457 $387.93 35%

MI 68,657 41,624 $341.93 37%

MN 35,961 22,036 $419.14 35%

MO 26,710 15,700 $292.60 34%

MS 9,750 5,912 $251.48 32%

MT 2,770 1,593 $398.26 32%

NC 46,850 28,290 $303.27 33%

ND 469 238 $275.80 31%

NE 3,702 2,203 $260.10 33%

NH 10,054 6,631 $466.68 34%

NJ 79,040 51,352 $632.05 37%

NM 8,206 5,032 $348.52 33%

NV 52,526 31,845 $527.17 38%

NY 114,520 75,088 $791.55 39%

OH 56,221 32,392 $289.15 35%

OK 7,180 3,955 $244.46 32%

OR 25,155 15,729 $456.69 34%

PA 55,847 34,952 $346.05 33%

RI 10,780 7,282 $539.93 39%

SC 24,434 14,487 $297.42 32%

SD 1,006 543 $259.26 29%

TN 27,603 16,873 $285.04 34%

TX 77,239 43,449 $284.67 33%

UT 18,714 11,928 $430.89 32%

VA 53,613 33,471 $486.17 32%

VT 1,974 1,370 $363.40 33%

WA 46,766 30,613 $505.33 33%

WI 23,271 14,741 $345.93 35%

WV 3,513 2,048 $308.56 29%

WY 1,182 709 $356.56 29%

PR 5,562 4,418 $288.64 37%

Nationwide* 2,279,407 1,448,456 $487.60 36%

Appendix 4: HAMP Activity by State

* Includes U.S. Territories
35

AK 44.83% 6.8% $1,484.78 $4,201.75 $216,259.76 $866.97 $93.32 $181.86 -$399.74

AL 46.45% 6.8% $876.68 $2,295.07 $121,240.44 $515.11 $49.18 $100.48 -$229.51

AR 45.31% 6.5% $809.17 $2,142.78 $115,395.44 $473.35 $48.93 $102.31 -$199.43

AZ 49.17% 6.4% $1,195.43 $2,824.17 $179,014.68 $675.03 $79.54 $193.92 -$289.74

CA 48.58% 6.1% $1,943.35 $4,690.79 $306,949.64 $1,096.74 $138.21 $318.23 -$434.95

CO 46.23% 6.4% $1,238.25 $3,203.96 $189,721.86 $757.13 $81.64 $181.92 -$275.86

CT 45.36% 6.5% $1,463.94 $4,341.45 $211,284.98 $807.84 $92.86 $204.79 -$385.41

DC 47.91% 6.4% $1,711.06 $4,119.25 $275,733.70 $995.62 $122.54 $275.55 -$367.17

DE 46.95% 6.5% $1,289.27 $3,121.75 $197,096.91 $771.07 $84.21 $178.80 -$297.88

FL 47.57% 6.5% $1,194.07 $3,277.00 $170,777.72 $630.38 $75.96 $172.74 -$332.61

GA 47.30% 6.5% $1,008.39 $2,655.22 $144,255.02 $572.69 $62.59 $141.24 -$268.80

HI 48.85% 6.3% $2,416.54 $5,368.51 $392,422.21 $1,400.24 $175.57 $381.45 -$488.41

IA 44.18% 6.6% $781.85 $2,319.42 $109,543.47 $441.73 $46.25 $96.21 -$200.18

ID 48.33% 6.5% $1,145.59 $2,734.66 $171,523.75 $669.96 $74.84 $166.16 -$270.87

IL 46.91% 6.5% $1,283.85 $3,730.33 $180,162.64 $664.03 $80.20 $183.20 -$371.16

IN 45.96% 6.8% $817.93 $2,166.67 $110,833.76 $466.22 $45.70 $97.29 -$215.22

KS 44.33% 6.6% $903.83 $2,733.25 $126,880.66 $512.54 $51.64 $111.88 -$230.88

KY 45.51% 6.8% $809.39 $2,212.89 $112,193.09 $469.27 $46.73 $98.55 -$209.66

LA 45.48% 6.9% $904.57 $2,582.85 $125,661.40 $514.45 $52.28 $105.94 -$244.47

MA 46.90% 6.4% $1,664.50 $4,356.82 $250,706.82 $944.04 $110.37 $245.91 -$399.53

MD 46.75% 6.4% $1,672.11 $4,333.33 $259,840.95 $962.86 $115.47 $258.58 -$385.64

ME 46.41% 6.6% $1,137.84 $3,028.57 $164,723.20 $640.02 $71.46 $149.97 -$288.29

MI 46.71% 6.5% $958.87 $2,686.89 $130,584.11 $524.67 $55.66 $127.17 -$260.40

MN 45.95% 6.3% $1,207.25 $3,317.26 $179,486.77 $697.54 $78.06 $180.09 -$289.49

MO 45.86% 6.6% $886.97 $2,499.13 $124,683.83 $501.21 $52.85 $112.37 -$239.14

MS 46.09% 6.9% $821.52 $2,241.72 $112,469.91 $460.77 $45.79 $92.51 -$227.71

MT 46.56% 6.4% $1,262.50 $3,260.09 $193,934.45 $740.97 $82.33 $176.54 -$298.76

NC 46.17% 6.5% $956.01 $2,534.96 $135,720.34 $557.14 $57.42 $120.30 -$242.66

ND 41.98% 6.6% $891.55 $2,989.00 $136,122.49 $566.10 $57.21 $120.33 -$198.13

NE 43.69% 6.7% $796.13 $2,522.00 $110,574.91 $464.81 $46.82 $94.59 -$212.89

NH 44.00% 6.4% $1,354.98 $4,165.00 $199,945.91 $780.22 $85.96 $186.43 -$330.97

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

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after All 

Increases

Final Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

State

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I After Mod UPB

After Mod 

Monthly 

P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Before Mod 

DTI

 Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

Median Values
36

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

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after All 

Increases

Final Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

State

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I After Mod UPB

After Mod 

Monthly 

P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Before Mod 

DTI

 Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

Median Values

NJ 45.24% 6.4% $1,716.18 $5,238.42 $251,950.00 $913.75 $112.29 $246.45 -$447.06

NM 47.05% 6.5% $1,065.15 $2,760.14 $157,388.11 $630.98 $68.33 $147.45 -$271.74

NV 49.98% 6.3% $1,372.39 $3,138.91 $208,030.85 $760.00 $93.02 $222.71 -$337.41

NY 47.22% 6.5% $2,088.16 $5,683.57 $311,238.13 $1,113.65 $139.64 $305.93 -$547.02

OH 45.29% 6.6% $825.07 $2,416.00 $112,127.01 $463.42 $46.78 $104.10 -$221.58

OK 44.61% 6.9% $785.66 $2,384.82 $107,695.12 $453.44 $43.92 $90.06 -$214.27

OR 46.56% 6.4% $1,330.43 $3,466.66 $207,428.11 $789.35 $91.71 $201.96 -$310.06

PA 45.11% 6.6% $1,099.80 $3,230.54 $154,499.56 $611.44 $65.72 $136.00 -$284.27

RI 47.45% 6.4% $1,369.48 $3,658.33 $197,608.74 $737.73 $87.91 $202.61 -$374.25

SC 46.51% 6.6% $970.22 $2,528.11 $138,526.84 $565.32 $58.64 $123.55 -$242.34

SD 44.25% 6.4% $941.36 $2,711.56 $136,237.91 $527.65 $57.55 $127.50 -$213.42

TN 46.81% 6.9% $884.75 $2,323.98 $120,077.94 $501.31 $49.40 $104.01 -$247.51

TX 43.14% 6.9% $867.15 $2,980.62 $120,043.85 $504.58 $49.96 $103.27 -$236.77

UT 47.23% 6.5% $1,368.96 $3,293.00 $211,600.04 $818.64 $93.39 $210.06 -$303.45

VA 46.47% 6.4% $1,596.73 $4,072.69 $249,116.96 $930.76 $109.12 $244.10 -$330.58

VT 45.91% 6.7% $1,132.79 $3,120.00 $168,109.94 $640.02 $72.39 $159.15 -$290.31

WA 46.35% 6.4% $1,517.72 $3,986.67 $241,988.24 $894.05 $107.42 $234.39 -$334.24

WI 44.89% 6.5% $990.96 $3,005.34 $139,435.45 $552.70 $59.78 $128.60 -$264.28

WV 46.40% 6.6% $1,081.87 $2,667.50 $155,018.29 $632.44 $64.62 $127.20 -$250.16

WY 46.10% 6.5% $1,305.74 $3,296.01 $190,755.07 $807.14 $81.15 $161.65 -$289.64

PR 50.75% 6.4% $773.44 $1,663.00 $103,960.37 $447.92 $44.19 $95.54 -$210.57

Nationwide* 47.19% 6.4% $1,447.38 $3,805.49 $214,983.73 $802.59 $94.61 $211.56 -$345.30

* Includes U.S. Territories
37

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

2009Q3 3,584 10.7% 4.5% 4,417 15.8% 10.6% 4,636 25.9% 21.2% 4,967 32.3% 29.0%

2009Q4 43,682 5.7% 1.9% 47,523 10.2% 6.3% 51,422 20.4% 15.8% 54,604 25.4% 22.4%

2010Q1 123,952 4.3% 1.5% 150,254 10.4% 6.1% 161,162 20.3% 16.1% 166,187 26.0% 22.4%

2010Q2 147,607 5.3% 1.8% 157,240 12.3% 7.5% 173,512 19.5% 16.1% 170,700 27.8% 24.1%

2010Q3 86,243 5.1% 1.9% 95,950 11.1% 7.1% 104,225 18.2% 14.5% 106,202 25.3% 21.9%

2010Q4 58,040 4.6% 1.8% 62,468 8.9% 5.8% 65,090 18.4% 14.5% 66,643 24.0% 21.1%

2011Q1 70,922 2.8% 1.0% 75,941 8.2% 5.0% 79,648 17.0% 13.6% 81,250 22.2% 19.2%

2011Q2 79,855 3.7% 1.3% 89,119 9.4% 5.8% 92,600 16.2% 13.2% 91,880 23.1% 20.1%

2011Q3 80,846 3.7% 1.3% 85,922 8.8% 5.6% 86,873 15.6% 12.3% 86,624 21.8% 18.9%

2011Q4 64,882 3.4% 1.2% 67,405 6.9% 4.4% 67,738 14.7% 11.4% 67,890 19.3% 16.8%

2012Q1 49,368 2.5% 0.9% 50,814 6.8% 4.1% 50,849 14.1% 10.9% 50,238 18.5% 15.8%

2012Q2 43,975 3.0% 1.0% 44,956 7.7% 4.6% 45,237 13.6% 10.9% 44,767 18.9% 16.1%

2012Q3 47,280 3.1% 1.0% 48,960 7.4% 4.6% 49,701 13.0% 10.1% 50,232 17.9% 15.1%

2012Q4 39,290 3.2% 1.1% 41,206 6.3% 4.0% 42,426 12.3% 9.4% 42,695 16.3% 14.1%

2013Q1 39,249 2.3% 0.7% 40,907 6.1% 3.5% 42,040 12.7% 9.7% 42,420 16.6% 14.0%

2013Q2 31,553 2.7% 0.8% 33,026 6.6% 3.9% 33,719 11.8% 9.4% 33,983 16.5% 14.0%

2013Q3 31,978 3.0% 1.1% 33,453 7.1% 4.3% 34,851 12.2% 9.3% 11,112 17.0% 14.3%

2013Q4 27,324 3.1% 1.1% 28,651 6.4% 4.0% 29,935 12.4% 9.6%

2014Q1 23,695 2.6% 1.0% 25,580 6.9% 3.9% 8,681 12.5% 9.7%

2014Q2 19,025 3.7% 1.2% 19,835 7.7% 5.0%

2014Q3 17,015 3.5% 1.2% 6,021 7.7% 4.8%

2014Q4 5,248 3.3% 1.1%

All 1,134,613 3.9% 1.4% 1,209,648 9.0% 5.6% 1,224,345 16.7% 13.3% 1,172,394 22.9% 19.8%

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

2009Q3 5,070 36.9% 33.6% 5,169 44.0% 41.8% 5,052 48.5% 46.4% 5,061 54.1% 52.6%

2009Q4 55,561 31.6% 28.4% 56,375 39.7% 37.2% 56,189 42.3% 40.6% 55,392 48.9% 47.5%

2010Q1 167,979 31.9% 28.7% 166,240 39.7% 37.4% 165,131 42.4% 40.5% 38,409 46.8% 45.4%

2010Q2 178,832 31.1% 28.7% 175,052 39.2% 37.4% 175,175 41.9% 40.1%

2010Q3 106,257 29.5% 26.8% 104,558 37.2% 35.3% 105,013 39.7% 37.8%

2010Q4 66,406 29.6% 26.6% 65,936 36.4% 34.3% 66,246 38.3% 36.7%

2011Q1 80,896 27.5% 24.8% 81,055 33.8% 31.8% 81,273 35.7% 34.1%

2011Q2 91,469 27.3% 25.1% 91,555 33.2% 31.6% 91,659 35.5% 33.9%

2011Q3 85,108 25.8% 23.5% 86,868 31.1% 29.2% 30,881 34.2% 32.6%

2011Q4 67,626 23.4% 21.1% 67,749 28.6% 26.8%

2012Q1 50,752 22.5% 20.0% 17,021 28.0% 25.9%

2012Q2 44,978 22.1% 20.0%

2012Q3 50,500 20.9% 18.6%

2012Q4 42,821 19.9% 17.6%

2013Q1 13,379 19.7% 17.4%

2013Q2

2013Q3

2013Q4

2014Q1

2014Q2

2014Q3

2014Q4

All 1,107,634 27.8% 25.2% 917,578 36.1% 34.1% 776,619 39.7% 38.0% 98,862 48.3% 46.9%

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

of the 60+ and 90+ days delinquent metrics for all future reporting periods, even though some loans may have cured or paid off following program 

disqualification. In addition, once a loan is reported as paid off it is no longer reflected in future periods. 

Appendix 6: Performance of HAMP Tier 1 Modifications by Vintage

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

24 36 42 60

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18
38

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 67 $196.03 33%

Aguadilla-Isabela, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 184 $258.00 36%

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,495 $297.58 36%

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 301 $249.63 31%

Albany, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 222 $352.68 34%

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,707 $360.74 34%

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,306 $338.44 33%

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 162 $243.54 29%

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,036 $405.12 34%

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 140 $215.34 31%

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 138 $262.54 36%

Ames, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 61 $277.41 32%

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 532 $504.25 32%

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 114 $180.26 27%

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 208 $214.23 26%

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,171 $419.72 35%

Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 175 $207.77 29%

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 359 $320.38 35%

Arecibo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 141 $262.06 36%

Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,282 $351.10 33%

Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 547 $307.41 33%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 42,194 $378.70 37%

Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,350 $496.49 38%

Auburn-Opelika, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 249 $283.75 29%

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 952 $261.84 32%

Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,763 $331.05 33%

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,013 $478.23 37%

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 15,923 $475.74 32%

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 368 $311.37 34%

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,783 $616.10 36%

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,249 $262.13 30%

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 427 $264.73 37%

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 273 $226.76 34%

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 316 $225.43 33%

Beckley, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 57 $217.17 35%

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 610 $478.62 34%

Bend-Redmond, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,240 $535.79 37%

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 152 $291.84 27%

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 252 $247.80 36%

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,477 $281.26 32%

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area 51 $339.62 34%

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 170 $302.78 29%

Bloomington, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 142 $347.41 41%

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 208 $267.66 31%

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

Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 42 $250.95 39%

Boise City, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,961 $383.27 34%

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 24,466 $628.02 36%

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 626 $479.32 34%

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 169 $243.77 34%

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 949 $476.27 31%

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,269 $716.25 40%

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 517 $232.05 34%

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 250 $336.14 34%

Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,530 $258.96 34%

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA
39

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 405 $258.77 31%

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area 427 $416.69 35%

California-Lexington Park, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 318 $557.26 32%

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,228 $262.89 34%

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,038 $478.41 40%

Cape Girardeau, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 111 $231.07 31%

Carbondale-Marion, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 50 $282.69 45%

Carson City, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 399 $529.45 37%

Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 128 $340.47 29%

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 333 $251.76 31%

Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 237 $349.29 32%

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 201 $242.83 30%

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 167 $222.46 33%

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,004 $355.47 33%

Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,610 $318.44 33%

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 608 $392.46 31%

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,371 $273.30 34%

Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 137 $272.90 27%

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 74,139 $519.02 41%

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,111 $459.66 34%

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,889 $308.91 34%

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 245 $222.46 30%

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 226 $261.10 32%

Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,177 $306.53 37%

Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 650 $412.43 33%

College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 128 $221.07 27%

Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,019 $391.03 33%

Columbia, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 166 $243.79 32%

Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,440 $268.12 32%

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 711 $267.34 32%

Columbus, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 118 $224.59 32%

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,270 $322.18 35%

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 364 $247.71 32%

Corvallis, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 105 $348.52 26%

Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 835 $422.07 36%

Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 138 $246.68 30%

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 14,603 $300.53 33%

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 489 $260.32 34%

Danville, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 48 $203.56 37%

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 53 $172.03 23%

Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 379 $356.17 35%

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 543 $240.88 35%

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,996 $263.14 35%

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 178 $233.12 28%

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 87 $206.29 36%

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,556 $394.00 38%

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,797 $408.13 33%

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,412 $271.57 31%

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 24,633 $377.34 38%

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 183 $214.12 30%

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 871 $400.63 30%

Dubuque, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 105 $266.07 37%

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 669 $283.89 33%

Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,314 $322.13 34%

East Stroudsburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,107 $498.07 41%
40

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 237 $294.83 32%

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,455 $441.37 35%

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,267 $247.94 33%

Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 127 $238.72 30%

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 589 $253.32 32%

Elmira, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 108 $271.55 40%

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 356 $239.63 37%

Eugene, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,139 $394.20 33%

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 421 $208.85 31%

Fairbanks, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 65 $339.78 23%

Fajardo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 15 $208.03 27%

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 172 $280.57 30%

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 116 $284.24 26%

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 618 $233.45 33%

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,201 $286.41 33%

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 320 $526.70 34%

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,752 $320.73 37%

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 469 $220.87 30%

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 150 $210.17 33%

Fond du Lac, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 162 $295.97 34%

Fort Collins, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 844 $409.07 31%

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 235 $215.61 30%

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 840 $242.77 35%

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,604 $481.23 37%

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 162 $224.26 30%

Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 674 $335.57 35%

Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,124 $331.55 36%

Gettysburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 229 $443.59 36%

Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 323 $333.55 36%

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 157 $237.42 33%

Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 60 $225.75 29%

Grand Island, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 32 $230.84 33%

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 558 $418.38 33%

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,941 $287.22 34%

Grants Pass, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 312 $560.87 41%

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

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,084 $358.67 30%

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 573 $346.76 37%

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,448 $284.79 33%

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 347 $270.54 33%

Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,100 $266.15 32%

Guayama, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 40 $188.52 34%

Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 710 $283.43 35%

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,585 $423.72 32%

Hammond, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 196 $308.28 35%

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 897 $425.12 34%

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,058 $315.20 32%

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 241 $408.72 34%

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,425 $452.04 35%

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 229 $238.40 31%

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,010 $243.80 31%

Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 559 $520.03 41%

Hinesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 118 $240.45 31%

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

Homosassa Springs, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 409 $364.45 42%
41

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 788 $640.33 26%

Hot Springs, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 142 $328.31 36%

Houma-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 247 $244.82 30%

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 15,723 $287.33 34%

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 298 $238.00 34%

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 612 $237.56 29%

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 289 $260.09 25%

Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,248 $275.29 32%

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 104 $309.38 31%

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 51 $343.54 34%

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 607 $284.47 35%

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,632 $250.11 32%

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 282 $231.66 32%

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,733 $371.66 35%

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 161 $257.85 27%

Janesville-Beloit, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 572 $266.04 34%

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 151 $211.37 30%

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 248 $253.89 32%

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 96 $192.26 28%

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 73 $241.62 33%

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 225 $200.28 31%

Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 852 $1,069.96 40%

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 829 $305.70 37%

Kankakee, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 418 $344.58 36%

Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,678 $312.84 34%

Kennewick-Richland, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 346 $265.73 31%

Killeen-Temple, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 249 $220.19 29%

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 342 $233.02 33%

Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 910 $496.04 38%

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,699 $263.10 31%

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 221 $218.38 32%

La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 144 $263.15 29%

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 81 $207.52 25%

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 554 $240.38 30%

Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 165 $277.53 36%

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 254 $233.47 32%

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,263 $409.56 36%

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,365 $370.77 36%

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,043 $311.30 30%

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,496 $313.98 35%

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 494 $289.93 36%

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 341 $327.50 30%

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,098 $529.83 39%

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 154 $315.24 31%

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 95 $212.35 32%

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 255 $304.01 31%

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

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 322 $332.26 34%

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 791 $295.06 34%

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 193 $244.04 38%

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 359 $265.02 32%

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,094 $242.53 31%

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 203 $320.23 28%

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 129 $232.60 33%

Longview, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 410 $382.14 33%
42

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 81,467 $854.59 40%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 23,633 $677.12 31%

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,065 $264.88 33%

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 163 $231.12 32%

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 434 $248.76 27%

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 823 $277.28 36%

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,648 $511.23 38%

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,176 $396.43 34%

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,085 $480.04 33%

Manhattan, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 61 $336.58 31%

Mankato-North Mankato, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 150 $301.79 30%

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 296 $237.93 34%

Mayaguez, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 79 $237.80 37%

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,140 $253.19 34%

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,201 $462.62 35%

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,856 $297.73 36%

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,407 $533.82 38%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 75,759 $546.88 42%

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 326 $253.89 33%

Midland, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 94 $304.10 41%

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 66 $253.11 30%

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,643 $360.08 37%

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 18,147 $450.46 36%

Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 241 $408.46 31%

Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,158 $259.93 35%

Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,557 $568.56 37%

Monroe, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 208 $210.99 27%

Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 736 $354.54 35%

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 788 $233.12 29%

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 48 $379.46 38%

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 256 $259.68 32%

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 478 $517.29 37%

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 171 $198.38 31%

Muskegon, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 586 $244.76 36%

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,710 $391.17 37%

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,112 $833.33 36%

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,411 $616.66 42%

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,931 $311.58 32%

New Bern, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 109 $350.05 42%

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,315 $479.88 36%

New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,054 $335.22 35%

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 102,041 $814.77 40%

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 464 $266.62 33%

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,172 $476.10 40%

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,355 $486.43 37%

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,388 $363.35 37%

Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 559 $476.45 33%

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 53 $203.44 29%

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,777 $360.54 28%

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,721 $257.02 32%

Olympia-Tumwater, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,015 $440.89 32%

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,689 $271.09 33%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 25,928 $460.20 39%

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 267 $278.55 35%

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 110 $196.89 32%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,327 $843.24 36%
43

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,399 $400.43 38%

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

Panama City, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 614 $387.26 36%

Parkersburg-Vienna, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 98 $184.53 29%

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $215.69 26%

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,594 $310.01 34%

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 426 $220.86 33%

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,782 $403.15 33%

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 42,101 $459.92 37%

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 74 $213.53 31%

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,995 $266.94 34%

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 230 $330.76 32%

Pocatello, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 158 $255.23 31%

Ponce, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 179 $245.91 39%

Port St. Lucie, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,055 $461.80 39%

Portland-South Portland, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,462 $444.33 35%

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,916 $482.18 35%

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

Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,324 $444.78 36%

Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,543 $541.14 38%

Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,505 $462.81 32%

Pueblo, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 580 $263.55 33%

Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,213 $445.61 41%

Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 728 $354.80 36%

Raleigh, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,403 $342.72 32%

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 147 $319.86 34%

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,298 $342.07 32%

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,104 $444.27 33%

Reno, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,899 $524.82 36%

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,526 $371.47 32%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 66,032 $641.47 37%

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 705 $275.24 31%

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 399 $324.64 33%

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,561 $266.67 36%

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,365 $326.03 38%

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 357 $251.86 35%

Rome, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 174 $237.50 30%

Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 22,309 $612.54 36%

Saginaw, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 444 $257.94 35%

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,590 $384.77 34%

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,356 $875.40 40%

Salisbury, MD-DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,332 $430.21 35%

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,615 $424.56 33%

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

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,191 $257.46 32%

San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 23,601 $767.33 36%

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 28,747 $877.87 38%

San German, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 78 $238.91 33%

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,204 $968.15 37%

San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,622 $302.07 38%

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,520 $774.71 37%

Sandusky, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 71 $217.31 27%

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

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,465 $982.72 38%

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 600 $523.78 35%

Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,015 $775.78 40%

Santa Rosa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,978 $811.58 37%
44

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,252 $324.69 34%

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,315 $284.71 35%

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 19,714 $562.53 34%

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,110 $408.42 39%

Sebring, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 307 $411.23 44%

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 209 $271.74 30%

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 161 $228.31 31%

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 736 $238.64 31%

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 183 $324.51 34%

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 180 $237.19 35%

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 241 $226.49 26%

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 949 $251.46 35%

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 840 $246.99 31%

Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,540 $328.79 32%

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 181 $244.10 35%

Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,620 $369.06 34%

Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 744 $262.65 33%

Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 320 $259.54 38%

St. Cloud, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 481 $324.83 31%

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,032 $539.91 37%

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 172 $252.74 36%

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,527 $302.38 35%

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 134 $367.67 35%

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 154 $399.05 38%

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

Stockton-Lodi, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,264 $653.86 38%

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 197 $224.13 33%

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 742 $260.39 35%

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,243 $330.39 31%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 21,716 $408.29 38%

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 171 $224.53 37%

Texarkana, TX-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 90 $199.42 29%

The Villages, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 147 $425.76 42%

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,101 $256.44 35%

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 268 $221.76 28%

Trenton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,571 $486.71 37%

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,892 $367.53 35%

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,398 $249.76 32%

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 327 $287.06 31%

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 212 $311.84 35%

Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,892 $830.72 34%

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 328 $246.96 34%

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 193 $284.98 31%

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,262 $734.57 37%

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 39 $251.86 35%

Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 683 $362.74 35%

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,782 $394.23 31%

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,758 $424.30 36%

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 177 $208.46 32%

Walla Walla, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 74 $353.41 35%

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 302 $274.33 33%

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 46,837 $644.15 35%

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 201 $207.31 33%

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 38 $266.06 33%

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 189 $303.68 36%

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 87 $240.95 37%

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 285 $363.29 29%
45

 Metropolitan Statistical Area 

 Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median 

Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 117 $171.48 29%

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 61 $188.96 33%

Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 763 $238.30 33%

Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 143 $206.40 28%

Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,105 $379.39 34%

Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 793 $455.97 31%

Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,701 $273.75 33%

Worcester, MA-CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,354 $507.74 36%

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 398 $279.80 31%

Yauco, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 5 $188.51 29%

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,613 $367.80 32%

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,256 $253.99 36%

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,408 $501.17 36%

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,169 $338.21 35%