Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT 

THROUGH THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2014
More than 2.1 Million Homeowner Assistance Actions have taken place under 

Making Home Affordable (MHA) programs

2

MHA AT-A-GLANCE

1MP

Q2: 60K

PTD: 1.6M

See Page 5

SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS

MAKING HOME AFFORDABLE EXTENDED FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR

On June 26, 2014, at the MHA Five Year Anniversary Summit, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob L. Lew 

announced the extension of MHA at least until December 31, 2016. More information on the 

announcement is located in the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s press release.

2MP

Q2: 6K

PTD: 137K

See Page 15

HAFA

Q2: 21K

PTD: 302K

See Page 16

UP

Q2: 1.1K

PTD: 41K

See Page 17

SERVICER

MINOR 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

MODERATE 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

SUBSTANTIAL 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

Bank of America, N.A. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

CitiMortgage, Inc. 

QUARTERLY PROGRAM VOLUMES FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2014

(Months of April, May, and June)
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

Table of Contents

MHA HISTORY 4

MHA PROGRAM UPDATES 5

HAMP PROGRAM RESULTS:

HAMP Summary 6

HAMP Modification Characteristics 7

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 8

Performance of Permanent HAMP Tier 1 Modifications 9-10

Homeowners with Disqualified Modifications 11

HAMP State by State 12

Treasury’s Hardest Hit State Programs 13

OTHER MHA PROGRAMS:

Principal Reduction Alternative 14

2MP Program 15

HAFA Program 16

Unemployment Program 17

RESULTS BY SERVICER:

MHA Program Activity by Servicer and Investor 18

Servicer Assessment Results 19-25

APPENDIX:

Program and Servicer Assessment Notes A-1

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

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
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

In March 2009, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) launched the Making Home Affordable Program (MHA) to 

provide relief to families at risk of foreclosure and help the housing market recover from a historic crisis. The cornerstone 

of MHA is the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a first lien mortgage modification program which helps 

struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by lowering monthly mortgage payments to affordable levels. MHA also includes 

other programs designed to assist homeowners facing specific hardships, such as unemployment, negative equity and 

second liens.

MHA's impact on the housing market goes far beyond the assistance actions achieved through the program thus far. MHA 

combined financial incentives, a standardized modification structure, focused eligibility criteria, and consumer protection 

guidelines to encourage homeowners, servicers, and investors to participate in the first nationwide mortgage modification 

program. By setting new standards for mortgage assistance, MHA has prompted improvements across the mortgage 

servicing industry and indirectly assisted millions more. MHA also includes a robust compliance process to help ensure 

that mortgage servicers are treating homeowners appropriately, and promote transparency and accountability throughout 

the industry.

MHA is part of a wider government response that helped stabilize the housing market and provide security for 

homeowners. More detail on the Administration’s efforts can be found in the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s monthly scorecard. 

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Government Sponsored 

Enterprises (GSEs) participate in some MHA programs in addition to their own foreclosure prevention programs. The 

Administration’s programs have spurred the industry to initiate millions of private modifications and foreclosure 

alternatives, more than double the number of foreclosures completed.

The latest housing data show important progress across many key indicators; however, the overall recovery remains

fragile, and there are still many homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure. 

MHA History

Source: Mortgage Banker’s Association National Delinquency Survey

4
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

• Treasury now requires servicers to offer free financial counseling to homeowners that have received trial period plans 

under HAMP, as well as homeowners with permanent modifications that show signs of distress. The counseling is 

offered at no cost to the homeowner and is designed to help the homeowner stay current on their modified mortgage 

loan. 

• Homeowners experiencing an interest rate step-up in a HAMP modification will receive a notice 60-75 calendar days 

before the first payment is due at the adjusted interest rate. This follows a required first notice sent at least 120-240 

calendar days before the first payment is due at the adjusted interest rate. 

• During the second quarter of 2014, MHA hosted three Help for Homeowner events in Orlando, Florida; Novi, Michigan; 

and Cleveland, Ohio. More than 700 homeowners attended the events to seek assistance with their mortgages 

through MHA programs.

• For the second quarter of 2014, servicers with one exception, showed overall improvement in program compliance 

from the prior quarter, with three servicers moving out of the “moderate improvement” category and into the “minor 

improvement” category. However, this quarter’s results indicate that some servicers continue to need to make 

improvements in accurately calculating homeowners' income. One servicer was rated as requiring substantial 

improvement and will have incentives withheld until its performance improves.

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

Program-to-Date Q2 2014 QoQ % Change

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started 1,636,939 60,026 -6%

HAMP Tier 1 1,325,986 21,771 -19%

HAMP Tier 2 61,335 12,629 -12%

GSE Standard Modifications (SAI) 208,277 15,819 -7%

Treasury FHA and RD HAMP 41,341 9,807 68%

2MP Modifications Started 137,286 5,883 0%

HAFA Transactions Completed 302,031 21,220 -5%

UP Forbearance Plans Started 40,655 1,121 3%

Cumulative Activity 2,116,911 88,250 -6%

MHA Program Updates

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

Millions 

(Delinquent Loans)

Thousands

(Permanent Modifications)

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

5

*Derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association Quarterly National Delinquency Survey
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

HAMP Summary

Trial

Modifications

All Trials Started1 2,214,387

 Tier 1 2,134,941

 Tier 2 79,446

Active Trials 40,672

Trial Modifications Cancelled since Verified Income Requirement* 84,754

Permanent 

Modifications

All Permanent Modifications Started 1,387,321

Permanent Modifications Disqualified (Cumulative)** 398,222

Active Permanent Modifications 958,549

6

* When Treasury launched HAMP in the spring of 2009, the 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 on June 10, 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, 701,640 trials were cancelled, for a cumulative 786,394. 

** Does not include 30,550 loans paid off.

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:

• 57% received an alternative modification or resolved their delinquency.

• 22% went to foreclosure.

Outcome for Homeowners Who Do Not Receive a HAMP Modification

5%

3%

31%

26%

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 servicers 
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

Select HAMP Modification Characteristics 

7

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

at approximately $28.8 billion, program to date, compared with unmodified mortgage obligations. 

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

extension, and principal forbearance/forgiveness.

HAMP has two evaluation tiers:

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

achieve the target of 31%. 

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

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

mortgages only.

Select Median Permanent Modification Characteristics 

Loan 

Characteristic

Before 

Modification

After 

Modification

Median 

Decrease

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 44.0% 31.0% -13.5 pct pts

 Tier 2 28.7% 21.9% -6.5 pct pts

 All 43.6% 31.0% -13.0 pct pts

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 68.7% 51.6% -13.8 pct pts

 Tier 2 44.9% 37.3% -6.5 pct pts

 All 67.6% 50.8% -13.3 pct pts

Median Monthly Housing Payment

 Tier 1 $1,395.02 $822.81 ($502.32)

 Tier 2 $1,083.97 $720.21 ($331.07)

 All $1,381.15 $818.31 ($492.04)

Modification Steps for Permanent Modifications

Modification Step Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Interest Rate Reduction 96.1% 74.6% 95.1%

Term Extension 58.9% 69.2% 59.3%

Principal Forbearance 30.2% 31.4% 30.3%

All permanent modifications reflect some combination of 

the following modification steps:

HAMP Tier 2 provides another modification opportunity 

for struggling homeowners who did not qualify for a 

HAMP Tier 1 modification, or for those who lost good 

standing (missed 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.

• 14% 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 $5,080 $3,955 

Median Credit Score 565 560 565 

Median Property Value $176,200 $143,000 $175,000 

Additional HAMP Tier 2 Characteristics

Homeowner Characteristics
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

• The HAMP Tier 1 modification was designed to relieve homeowners facing a temporary financial hardship as a result of 

the crisis, 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 beforemodification 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 3.98% in 2013), 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 goes into effect in Q3 2014 for the earliest group of HAMP modifications.

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

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

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

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

the final interest rate increase is $211.

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 

* As of June 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

Number of Loans

Number of Interest Rate Increases by Quarter*

First Increase Second Increase Third Increase Fourth Increase

8

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

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

Performance of HAMP Tier 1 Permanent Modifications 

The longer a homeowner remains 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 Modifications2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 ALL

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

6 6.7% 6.7% 5.3% 4.3% 3.9% 3.4% 5.6%

12 16.2% 15.5% 12.7% 10.3% 9.5% 13.5%

18 22.9% 22.7% 18.9% 15.3% 13.7% 20.2%

24 28.8% 28.0% 23.7% 19.7% 25.8%

30 33.3% 32.6% 27.3% 23.1% 30.6%

36 37.5% 36.5% 31.4% 35.3%

42 41.0% 39.3% 34.6% 39.2%

48 43.5% 42.3% 42.4%

54 45.9% 43.2% 44.8%

Performance of HAMP modifications has improved over time. For modifications seasoned 24 months, 23.7% of 

modifications started in 2011 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%

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

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

9

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

Program Performance Report Second 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 15.6% of modifications with a monthly 

payment reduction greater than 50% have been 

disqualified due to missing three payments, compared to a 

disqualification rate of 40.4% 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 23.6% redefault rate in the subsequent 24 months, compared to 

29.8% 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 20.8% re-default rate 

in the subsequent 24 months, compared to a rate of 

11.0% 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

10
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

Homeowners with Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications

11

11%

6%

11%

3% 30%

2%

13%

9%

15%

Status of HAMP Permanent Modifications Disqualified

Action Pending

Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in 

Process 

Borrower Current

Alternative Modification

Payment Plan

Loan Payoff

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure Starts

Foreclosure Completions

Homeowners now have alternative options due to industry-wide changes instituted since the launch of HAMP.

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

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

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

evaluated for any 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 servicers 3
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

CA

AZ

NV

MI

FL

GA

IL MD

RI

ID

CO

OR

UT

MN

WI

WA

MO VA

OH

WV

NJ

NH

MA

CT

Total HAMP 

Modifications

10,000 and lower 

10,001-50,000

50,001-100,000

100,001 and higher

Median LTV Ratio

(Pre-Modification)

ST 100-115%

ST >115

See Appendix 4 for additional information on HAMP modification activity by state.

HAMP Modification State by State

Median 

Before 

Modification 

Front End DTI

Median

Before 

Modification 

LTV Ratio

Median 

Monthly 

Income

12-Month HPI 

Change*

Peak-to-Current 

HPI Change*

Arizona 45.2% 152.5% $3,086.26 6.6% -29.5%

Arkansas 40.7% 95.3% $2,408.28 -0.4% -2.1%

California 45.9% 139.9% $4,948.16 11.3% -15.3%

Florida 44.5% 146.6% $3,468.00 7.6% -34.1%

Indiana 40.7% 99.4% $2,450.00 3.1% -5.3%

Louisiana 40.7% 90.2% $2,839.50 2.9% 0.0%

Michigan 42.6% 134.1% $2,889.92 11.5% -19.7%

Montana 42.7% 90.2% $3,436.07 4.5% -5.6%

Nevada 46.2% 175.7% $3,455.82 11.1% -37.3%

New Jersey 42.7% 105.3% $5,485.39 4.1% -22.2%

New York 44.6% 96.5% $5,887.15 8.8% -0.6%

Ohio 41.2% 107.0% $2,654.53 6.5% -8.4%

Oklahoma 39.6% 89.3% $2,617.25 3.7% 0.0%

Rhode Island 44.2% 121.7% $4,004.91 3.4% -27.2%

Texas 39.3% 90.9% $3,271.13 8.4% 0.0%

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

12

Characteristics of Select States

HI
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

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 71 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 leverage 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, June 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 has included representatives from HHF-participating HFAs, 

who typically take applications from homeowners on site.

• The Homeowner’s HOPE Hotline TM includes information about HHF assistance in their scripting. When a homeowner 

from an HHF state contacts the Hotline and is in need of assistance, they receive MHA and HHF assistance information 

and a referral to their 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 

13

Change in Housing Price Index (HPI) 

Decline from Peak to Q2 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 Second 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 156,071 46,602 202,673

Active Permanent Modifications 126,790 38,253 165,043

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Active 

Permanent Modifications5 $71,867 $56,270 $67,229 

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Active 

Permanent Modifications (%)6 32.6% 18.0% 30.7%

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Reduced on Active 

Permanent Modifications5 $11,777,017,733 $2,622,722,931 $14,399,740,664 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be recognized immediately. 

The HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative

Modification Characteristics: HAMP vs. HAMP with Principal Reduction

All HAMP 

Modifications

Total HAMP 

Modifications with 

Principal Reduction

Active Permanent Modifications – Median LTV ratio:

- Before Modification 118.0% 146.7%

- After Modification 115.0% 110.0%

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

- Front-End DTI 45.0% 44.4%

- Back-End DTI 67.5% 56.9%

45.2% 54.4% 60.6% 58.9%

45.4%

73.0% 70.1%

64.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

2Q 2011 2Q 2012 2Q 2013 2Q 2014

Trials Started with Principal 

Reduction as a % of Eligible Loans 

PRA All Principal Reduction

14
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Second 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)* 137,286

Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien Extinguishments 36,928

Active Second Lien Modifications** 83,403

Active Second Lien Modifications Involving Partial Lien Extinguishments 10,520

* Includes 4,281 loans that have a qualifying first lien GSE Standard Modification.

** Includes 6,813 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 36,155 8,327

CitiMortgage 17,173 3,415

JPMorgan Chase 38,974 3,000

Nationstar Mortgage 4,396 1,187

Wells Fargo Bank 21,185 4,075

Other Servicers 19,403 1,938

Total 137,286 21,942

Median Monthly Payment Reduction:

HAMP homeowners with an active 2MP modification

Reduction on second lien only $154 

Combined first and second lien reduction $783 

% of total monthly payment 42%

HAMP homeowners receiving full extinguishment

Combined first and second lien reduction $1,038 

% of total monthly payment 53%

Debt Extinguishment:

HAMP homeowners receiving partial or full extinguishment

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Extinguished $2.8B

Top Three States by Activity:

Percent of Total 2MP Modifications Started

California 35%

Florida 9%

New York 7%

Note: Only six of the eight largest SPA servicers participate in 2MP.

2MP Modification Characteristics

15
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Second 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 38%

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 $282,573 

Median Sales Price $165,000 

Median Debt Relief $127,737 

Median Debt Relief as % of UPB 47%

Total Subordinate Debt Relief (cumulative) $22.1B

% of HAFA transactions completed that included 

release of a homeowner’s subordinate liens 42%

Total subordinate liens released (cumulative) $405M

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.

Private Portfolio GSE Total

Short Sale 113,431 42,057 118,364 273,852

Deed-in-Lieu 2,907 2,555 22,717 28,179

Total Transactions 

Completed 116,338 44,612 141,081 302,031

16
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Second 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 40,655

UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required 34,559

UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required 6,096

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%

18%

1%

21%

25%

28%

Status of Homeowners Who Completed an UP Forbearance Plan

Foreclosure Started

Foreclosure Completed

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

UP Forbearance Plan Extension

New HAMP Trial

Borrower Current / Loan Paid Off

Other*

17
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

18

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. 103,340 1,878 6,422 36,155 46,603

CitiMortgage, Inc. 62,334 2,887 3,979 17,173 1,191

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 187,632 1,415 25,338 38,974 36,143

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 130,291 6,546 7,444 4,396 6,541

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 258,353 25,236 65,648 N/A 15,579

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 66,072 7,301 8,586 N/A 10,476

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 190,582 5,795 28,177 21,185 28,270

Other Servicers 327,382 10,277 10,477 19,403 16,147

Total 1,325,986 61,335 156,071 137,286 160,950

There are currently 124 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. 39,863 45,190 20,165 105,218

CitiMortgage, Inc. 39,345 8,040 17,836 65,221

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 87,031 59,794 42,222 189,047

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 80,505 52,903 3,429 136,837

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 54,795 206,097 22,697 283,589

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 674 67,366 5,333 73,373

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 77,933 39,780 78,664 196,377

Other Servicers 247,035 41,494 49,130 337,659

Total 627,181 520,664 239,476 1,387,321
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second 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. 

In June of 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. 

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 largest 

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/deed-in-lieu transactions pursuant to HAFA. 

Making Home Affordable Servicer Assessments

19
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second Quarter 2014

Improvement Needed Servicer Name

Minor

Bank of America, N.A.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Moderate

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Substantial CitiMortgage, Inc.*

*CitiMortgage, Inc. was found to need substantial improvement. Beginning this month, Treasury will withhold payment of 

servicer incentives until CitiMortgage’s performance improves.

2nd 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. 

20
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second 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 

21

Category Metric Benchmark

 Identifying and 

Contacting 

Homeowners

Assesses whether the 

servicer identifies and 

communicates 

appropriately with 

potentially eligible MHA 

homeowners.



Single Point of Contact Assignment % 

Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not 

concur that the servicer had assigned a Single Point 

of Contact to a homeowner in accordance with MHA 

guidelines

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 Second 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 4.6% 1.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

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

CitiMortgage,

Inc.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 15.2% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 1.0% 6.0%

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

JP Morgan 

Chase Bank, 

N.A.

Servicer 

Result 2.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

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

Nationstar 

Mortgage LLC

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 5.0% 2.8% 1.7% 0.0%

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

Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC

Servicer 

Result 1.6% 0.5% 1.1% 1.0% 2.9% 0.7% 4.0%

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

Select 

Portfolio 

Servicing, Inc.

Servicer 

Result 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%

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

Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A.

Servicer 

Result 6.7% 2.8% 0.0% 1.0% 2.6% 1.1% 0.0%

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

22

2nd Quarter Compliance Results
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second 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

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%

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%

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%

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

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

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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

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

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%

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%

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

23

Compliance Results Trending
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second 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

Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 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

Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 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

24
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Second 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

Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 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

Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 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. 

25

Program Results
26

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 non-GSE homeowners and a Tier 2 for non-GSE homeowners. In October 2011, the GSEs launched the Servicer Alignment 

Initiative (SAI), creating the GSE Standard Modification. Tier 2 is modeled after the GSE Standard Modification and expands HAMP 

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

to rent.

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

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

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

modified under Treasury FHA-HAMP guidelines. 

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

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

eligible first lien modification on the same property.

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

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

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

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

General MHA Program Notes:

MHA Program Effective Dates:

HAMP First Lien: April 6, 2009

PRA: October 1, 2010

2MP: August 13, 2009

HAFA: April 5, 2010

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

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

MHA First Lien Program Notes:

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

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

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

GSE Standard Modification data is provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of June 2014. The GSEs undertake other foreclosure 

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

Agency’s Foreclosure Prevention Report can be found at: www.FHFA.gov.
27

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Treasury FHA-HAMP Program Notes: 

The FHA undertakes foreclosure prevention activities beyond their participation in MHA which is 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 June 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.
28

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 activity transactions, rather than the entirety of the 

population of activity 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. 
29

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. 
30

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.
31

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.
32

 # 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

Servicers did not submit 15,658 OMRs, or 1.6% 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 42 months may range between 38.5% and 38.8%. 

3 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.

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. Important factors affecting the size of the population of 

second liens eligible for 2MP modifications include: 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, 365,022 qualifying first lien modifications 

have been matched with a second lien. Of these matched second liens, approximately 56% 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
33

 State Trial Modifications Started Permanent Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of Pre-Modification 

Payment

AK 1,199 657 $470.08 30%

AL 15,294 8,729 $261.33 31%

AR 6,019 3,322 $249.86 31%

AZ 89,559 52,398 $443.90 37%

CA 480,909 324,478 $720.83 37%

CO 30,044 18,575 $410.54 33%

CT 29,546 19,129 $535.42 37%

DC 3,925 2,406 $552.85 32%

DE 7,195 4,508 $412.06 32%

FL 274,848 170,646 $474.70 40%

GA 85,045 50,809 $362.64 36%

HI 8,010 5,165 $796.20 34%

IA 6,654 3,680 $248.73 32%

ID 8,371 5,070 $370.83 33%

IL 115,307 73,610 $510.44 40%

IN 23,976 14,106 $259.37 32%

KS 6,417 3,556 $288.02 32%

KY 9,768 5,701 $264.89 32%

LA 14,918 8,854 $284.26 32%

MA 50,561 33,432 $587.71 35%

MD 71,396 45,426 $571.74 34%

ME 6,378 4,209 $388.76 35%

MI 67,128 40,082 $342.36 37%

MN 35,263 21,414 $420.13 35%

MO 25,871 14,955 $294.11 34%

MS 9,294 5,545 $250.78 32%

MT 2,709 1,539 $397.99 32%

NC 45,211 26,817 $305.25 33%

ND 456 230 $276.95 31%

NE 3,554 2,087 $261.50 32%

NH 9,786 6,392 $468.60 34%

NJ 75,886 48,454 $636.51 37%

NM 7,970 4,772 $351.14 33%

NV 51,730 30,994 $527.98 38%

NY 109,419 70,483 $798.55 39%

Appendix 4: HAMP Activity by State
34

 State Trial Modifications Started Permanent Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 4: HAMP Activity by State

OH 54,180 30,581 $288.43 35%

OK 6,864 3,699 $244.46 32%

OR 24,487 15,130 $458.58 34%

PA 53,285 32,565 $349.87 33%

RI 10,409 6,911 $542.76 39%

SC 23,496 13,704 $299.49 32%

SD 980 520 $258.86 29%

TN 26,467 15,814 $284.35 33%

TX 74,323 40,911 $286.83 33%

UT 18,373 11,642 $433.45 32%

VA 52,094 32,080 $490.07 32%

VT 1,889 1,290 $365.28 33%

WA 45,507 29,362 $508.74 33%

WI 22,518 13,997 $346.61 35%

WV 3,418 1,958 $308.69 29%

WY 1,144 676 $357.18 29%

PR 5,305 4,234 $292.20 38%
35

AK 44.54% 6.8% $1,490.62 $4,205.71 $219,345.37 $867.72 $93.32 $171.59 -$390.42

AL 46.24% 6.8% $877.74 $2,297.28 $121,477.23 $518.06 $49.49 $101.14 -$227.11

AR 45.41% 6.5% $820.50 $2,152.00 $116,207.94 $475.68 $49.31 $104.44 -$198.67

AZ 49.06% 6.4% $1,199.11 $2,837.58 $179,623.35 $679.08 $79.68 $194.31 -$288.40

CA 48.53% 6.1% $1,944.18 $4,695.61 $307,000.38 $1,099.27 $138.08 $318.04 -$432.59

CO 46.07% 6.5% $1,240.05 $3,215.50 $189,733.30 $759.82 $81.60 $181.49 -$274.11

CT 45.43% 6.5% $1,476.26 $4,348.44 $212,502.50 $817.09 $93.30 $205.99 -$385.94

DC 47.77% 6.4% $1,719.78 $4,148.43 $275,808.47 $999.12 $122.54 $272.90 -$367.17

DE 46.89% 6.5% $1,291.61 $3,141.67 $197,717.97 $775.91 $84.29 $180.04 -$295.39

FL 47.62% 6.5% $1,196.25 $3,275.00 $170,797.73 $631.77 $75.89 $172.92 -$332.10

GA 47.22% 6.5% $1,011.69 $2,666.24 $144,897.13 $576.57 $62.88 $141.99 -$268.10

HI 48.68% 6.3% $2,414.24 $5,377.80 $391,386.67 $1,403.50 $174.91 $377.55 -$481.82

IA 44.15% 6.6% $786.90 $2,312.27 $109,293.07 $444.87 $46.29 $95.82 -$197.43

ID 48.26% 6.5% $1,147.13 $2,732.50 $171,523.75 $670.98 $74.76 $166.32 -$271.11

IL 46.87% 6.5% $1,288.39 $3,742.77 $181,058.51 $668.04 $80.57 $184.19 -$370.65

IN 45.95% 6.8% $820.30 $2,168.50 $111,809.48 $468.34 $46.20 $99.02 -$213.27

KS 44.00% 6.6% $908.03 $2,779.24 $129,276.68 $523.39 $52.54 $112.54 -$226.24

KY 45.43% 6.8% $815.56 $2,237.38 $113,061.76 $476.11 $47.20 $98.40 -$208.00

LA 45.42% 6.9% $916.23 $2,600.00 $127,035.45 $519.49 $52.81 $107.25 -$243.09

MA 46.83% 6.4% $1,669.40 $4,371.33 $251,316.60 $951.00 $110.45 $246.08 -$396.54

MD 46.67% 6.4% $1,678.18 $4,340.49 $260,167.36 $968.04 $115.56 $258.77 -$382.98

ME 46.21% 6.6% $1,138.83 $3,010.82 $165,185.38 $643.81 $71.74 $150.42 -$285.05

MI 46.64% 6.5% $959.28 $2,692.50 $130,900.78 $525.90 $55.78 $127.27 -$259.01

MN 45.87% 6.3% $1,209.86 $3,330.25 $179,824.68 $701.02 $78.15 $180.76 -$286.97

MO 45.73% 6.7% $888.49 $2,500.00 $125,674.91 $504.70 $53.06 $112.35 -$237.34

MS 46.07% 6.9% $821.17 $2,240.00 $112,392.25 $461.44 $45.77 $92.78 -$226.35

MT 46.53% 6.4% $1,258.76 $3,256.55 $194,138.50 $745.19 $82.77 $176.60 -$296.57

NC 46.02% 6.5% $963.51 $2,556.33 $137,130.01 $563.03 $57.85 $121.32 -$241.22

ND 42.10% 6.7% $883.85 $2,908.74 $134,070.54 $544.00 $56.31 $114.05 -$204.43

NE 43.58% 6.7% $800.70 $2,530.67 $110,719.80 $465.37 $47.06 $94.41 -$207.43

NH 43.89% 6.4% $1,361.49 $4,167.08 $201,009.32 $786.46 $86.66 $188.67 -$328.64

NJ 45.25% 6.4% $1,720.59 $5,240.00 $252,393.65 $918.87 $112.27 $246.70 -$444.42

NM 47.00% 6.5% $1,072.43 $2,769.53 $158,712.85 $637.53 $69.00 $148.30 -$270.08

NV 49.91% 6.3% $1,373.40 $3,147.50 $208,196.20 $762.66 $93.03 $222.97 -$334.60

NY 47.27% 6.5% $2,093.16 $5,671.09 $311,082.02 $1,118.53 $139.38 $305.51 -$543.40

OH 45.21% 6.6% $828.71 $2,426.51 $112,578.10 $467.07 $46.99 $104.54 -$219.51

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

OK 44.59% 6.9% $785.70 $2,383.92 $107,610.01 $459.07 $43.93 $89.69 -$211.81

OR 46.46% 6.4% $1,336.75 $3,478.30 $208,082.31 $794.31 $91.86 $202.75 -$307.12

PA 45.09% 6.7% $1,109.09 $3,246.19 $155,978.64 $618.87 $66.34 $137.42 -$283.86

RI 47.34% 6.4% $1,371.80 $3,660.28 $197,997.63 $740.96 $87.82 $204.60 -$371.60

SC 46.48% 6.6% $975.51 $2,541.45 $140,096.10 $571.49 $59.04 $124.30 -$241.42

SD 44.33% 6.4% $926.45 $2,720.84 $135,872.19 $528.48 $58.23 $128.11 -$213.59

TN 46.66% 6.9% $885.64 $2,335.06 $120,904.18 $505.15 $49.64 $104.08 -$244.48

TX 43.13% 7.0% $873.30 $3,000.00 $121,093.40 $507.82 $50.26 $103.73 -$237.11

UT 46.97% 6.5% $1,371.18 $3,300.61 $212,152.25 $822.51 $93.36 $209.83 -$301.29

VA 46.33% 6.4% $1,596.72 $4,073.79 $249,715.48 $934.42 $109.22 $244.11 -$326.89

VT 45.80% 6.6% $1,132.79 $3,124.64 $167,898.27 $642.11 $71.31 $155.28 -$283.83

WA 46.32% 6.4% $1,522.65 $3,993.97 $242,241.47 $897.66 $107.40 $234.59 -$333.43

WI 44.79% 6.5% $993.41 $3,017.70 $140,754.20 $558.17 $60.06 $129.38 -$261.61

WV 46.38% 6.6% $1,091.18 $2,681.34 $155,640.57 $636.17 $64.85 $127.81 -$249.85

WY 46.14% 6.5% $1,299.00 $3,279.00 $191,510.14 $805.33 $82.65 $165.25 -$290.69

PR 50.67% 6.4% $775.85 $1,677.21 $104,787.07 $450.49 $44.28 $96.26 -$208.54
37

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

2009Q3 3,594 10.7% 4.5% 4,431 15.8% 10.6% 4,655 25.8% 21.2% 4,983 32.2% 28.9%

2009Q4 43,753 5.7% 1.9% 47,603 10.2% 6.3% 51,512 20.4% 15.8% 54,675 25.4% 22.3%

2010Q1 124,078 4.2% 1.5% 150,396 10.4% 6.1% 161,290 20.3% 16.1% 166,308 26.0% 22.4%

2010Q2 147,736 5.3% 1.8% 157,390 12.3% 7.5% 173,677 19.5% 16.0% 170,856 27.7% 24.1%

2010Q3 86,348 5.1% 1.9% 96,085 11.1% 7.1% 104,346 18.2% 14.5% 106,325 25.3% 21.9%

2010Q4 58,084 4.6% 1.8% 62,519 8.9% 5.8% 65,123 18.4% 14.5% 66,647 24.0% 21.1%

2011Q1 71,026 2.8% 1.0% 76,024 8.2% 5.0% 79,735 17.0% 13.5% 81,361 22.2% 19.1%

2011Q2 79,958 3.7% 1.3% 89,229 9.4% 5.8% 92,710 16.2% 13.2% 91,988 23.1% 20.0%

2011Q3 80,895 3.7% 1.3% 85,973 8.8% 5.6% 86,916 15.6% 12.3% 86,657 21.8% 18.9%

2011Q4 64,935 3.4% 1.2% 67,458 6.9% 4.4% 67,779 14.7% 11.4% 67,915 19.3% 16.8%

2012Q1 49,419 2.5% 0.8% 50,860 6.8% 4.1% 50,885 14.1% 10.8% 50,258 18.5% 15.8%

2012Q2 44,005 3.0% 1.0% 44,983 7.7% 4.6% 45,257 13.6% 10.9% 44,784 18.9% 16.1%

2012Q3 47,309 3.1% 1.0% 48,985 7.4% 4.6% 49,722 13.0% 10.1% 50,247 17.9% 15.1%

2012Q4 39,309 3.2% 1.1% 41,225 6.3% 4.0% 42,433 12.3% 9.4% 42,696 16.3% 14.0%

2013Q1 39,267 2.3% 0.7% 40,924 6.1% 3.5% 42,046 12.6% 9.6% 13,398 16.4% 13.7%

2013Q2 31,559 2.7% 0.8% 33,029 6.5% 3.9% 33,716 11.8% 9.3%

2013Q3 31,986 3.0% 1.1% 33,454 7.1% 4.2% 11,118 12.2% 9.4%

2013Q4 27,327 3.1% 1.1% 28,643 6.4% 3.9%

2014Q1 23,700 2.5% 0.9% 8,427 6.5% 3.4%

2014Q2 6,958 3.4% 1.0%

All 1,101,246 3.9% 1.4% 1,167,638 9.1% 5.6% 1,162,920 16.9% 13.5% 1,099,098 23.3% 20.2%

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

2009Q3 5,086 36.7% 33.5% 5,148 41.1% 38.6% 5,182 43.9% 41.7% 5,065 48.4% 46.2%

2009Q4 55,632 31.5% 28.4% 56,707 35.2% 32.8% 56,438 39.6% 37.1% 56,248 42.3% 40.5%

2010Q1 168,102 31.8% 28.7% 168,026 35.4% 33.0% 166,348 39.7% 37.4% 165,229 42.3% 40.5%

2010Q2 178,988 31.0% 28.7% 177,408 35.8% 33.4% 175,175 39.2% 37.4% 175,280 41.9% 40.1%

2010Q3 106,368 29.4% 26.8% 105,944 34.2% 31.6% 104,629 37.1% 35.2% 105,096 39.6% 37.8%

2010Q4 66,398 29.6% 26.5% 66,054 33.1% 31.0% 65,902 36.4% 34.3% 66,211 38.2% 36.7%

2011Q1 80,996 27.5% 24.8% 80,116 31.1% 28.9% 81,144 33.8% 31.8% 28,298 36.2% 34.6%

2011Q2 91,570 27.3% 25.0% 92,071 30.7% 28.5% 91,635 33.1% 31.5%

2011Q3 85,126 25.8% 23.4% 86,429 29.0% 26.7% 31,108 31.5% 29.9%

2011Q4 67,651 23.4% 21.0% 67,513 26.0% 24.3%

2012Q1 50,766 22.5% 19.9% 17,054 25.2% 23.1%

2012Q2 44,986 22.0% 20.0%

2012Q3 17,185 20.8% 18.5%

2012Q4

2013Q1

2013Q2

2013Q3

2013Q4

2014Q1

2014Q2

All 1,018,854 28.4% 25.8% 922,470 32.9% 30.6% 777,561 37.2% 35.3% 601,427 41.0% 39.2%

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 30 36 42

Mod. 

Effective in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18
38

 Metropolitan Statistical Area Trials Started Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % 

of Pre-Modification 

Payment

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 116 61 $194.85 33%

Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastian, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 196 159 $254.43 36%

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,724 2,372 $294.79 36%

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 446 276 $241.95 30%

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,655 1,596 $364.12 34%

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,269 3,146 $342.40 33%

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 252 148 $244.42 29%

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,105 3,789 $406.32 34%

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 232 134 $215.34 30%

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 247 130 $260.87 35%

Ames, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 104 59 $274.76 32%

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 903 510 $493.92 32%

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 494 275 $209.68 30%

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 861 512 $252.41 31%

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,809 1,125 $420.75 35%

Anniston-Oxford, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 287 156 $211.95 29%

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 567 341 $305.80 33%

Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,969 1,239 $357.41 33%

Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 888 527 $311.35 33%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 66,889 40,533 $380.39 37%

Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,615 2,219 $499.06 38%

Auburn-Opelika, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 400 230 $284.57 29%

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,534 889 $259.05 32%

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX MSA 4,734 2,645 $335.18 33%

Bakersfield-Delano, CA MSA 12,361 7,768 $479.44 37%

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 23,586 15,053 $480.84 32%

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 538 343 $309.77 33%

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,458 1,720 $616.55 36%

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,516 2,109 $263.12 30%

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 656 407 $265.74 37%

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 404 259 $226.15 34%

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 553 284 $228.40 34%

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 895 594 $478.33 34%

Bend, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,006 1,216 $536.91 37%

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 290 145 $293.19 27%

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 380 231 $247.57 36%

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,701 3,251 $280.44 32%

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area 98 50 $341.11 34%

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 255 143 $301.30 28%

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 330 226 $254.97 30%

Bloomington-Normal, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 292 190 $310.53 35%

Boise City-Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,730 2,878 $387.54 34%

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 35,133 23,514 $631.86 36%

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 950 609 $487.10 35%

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 224 145 $243.77 33%

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,395 902 $477.00 31%

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,850 5,932 $724.94 40%

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 906 473 $234.44 34%

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 391 236 $336.14 33%

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,243 1,386 $264.06 34%

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 629 381 $258.77 31%

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area 600 403 $420.58 35%

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,804 1,147 $262.10 34%

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,553 4,909 $481.94 41%

Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 184 102 $237.39 31%

Carson City, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 588 391 $529.45 37%

Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 195 124 $340.47 29%

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 571 308 $260.78 32%

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA
39

 Metropolitan Statistical Area Trials Started Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % 

of Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 330 186 $241.40 30%

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 345 196 $229.61 32%

Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,732 2,858 $359.34 33%

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 13,844 8,226 $318.75 33%

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 874 563 $395.86 30%

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,123 1,294 $274.18 33%

Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 216 129 $272.90 27%

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA 110,427 71,123 $522.41 41%

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,658 1,071 $463.56 34%

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,134 5,538 $306.62 34%

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 405 227 $219.93 29%

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 394 213 $260.75 31%

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 12,529 7,717 $306.48 36%

Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 982 629 $412.71 33%

College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 217 119 $217.95 27%

Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,105 1,947 $395.32 33%

Columbia, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 269 164 $246.88 32%

Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,907 2,299 $268.10 31%

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,138 666 $272.47 32%

Columbus, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 201 114 $239.86 34%

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,943 4,901 $324.67 35%

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 648 343 $244.38 32%

Corvallis, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 171 100 $347.65 25%

Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL MSA 1,137 647 $387.28 34%

Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 214 130 $246.68 30%

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 24,393 13,714 $302.66 33%

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 800 470 $261.01 35%

Danville, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 98 43 $210.85 37%

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 275 145 $197.87 29%

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 925 510 $243.58 35%

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,468 1,961 $263.57 35%

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 321 162 $233.12 27%

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 141 75 $177.08 29%

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,315 4,549 $382.27 37%

Denver-Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 18,257 11,392 $409.82 33%

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,401 1,346 $272.75 31%

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 40,430 23,806 $378.06 38%

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 284 161 $231.59 31%

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,283 821 $402.23 30%

Dubuque, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 170 99 $277.43 38%

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,007 634 $283.99 33%

Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,009 1,241 $324.62 33%

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 364 229 $304.02 33%

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,300 1,396 $447.40 35%

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,085 1,198 $251.15 34%

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 201 103 $238.72 30%

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 992 564 $253.86 32%

Elmira, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 147 98 $276.98 41%

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 529 323 $239.67 36%

Eugene-Springfield, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,766 1,088 $399.37 33%

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 766 419 $214.95 31%

Fairbanks, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 115 62 $339.48 24%

Fajardo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 98 77 $260.69 41%

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 316 161 $275.83 30%

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 184 111 $280.13 25%

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 948 571 $236.47 33%

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,054 1,165 $289.45 34%

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 523 308 $543.43 35%
40

 Metropolitan Statistical Area Trials Started Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % 

of Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,830 1,690 $319.10 36%

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 760 437 $223.25 29%

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 268 142 $212.00 33%

Fond du Lac, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 254 155 $292.57 33%

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,319 808 $413.92 32%

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 386 224 $215.74 30%

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,401 788 $245.98 35%

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 12,845 8,326 $485.50 37%

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 281 152 $242.17 33%

Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,077 633 $337.52 34%

Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,808 1,096 $331.34 36%

Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 492 301 $333.55 35%

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 246 146 $239.14 33%

Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 93 59 $231.80 30%

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 846 533 $419.92 33%

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,981 2,466 $281.28 34%

Great Falls, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 112 70 $275.50 30%

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,745 1,055 $359.01 30%

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 928 551 $348.26 37%

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,804 2,303 $284.52 33%

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 566 339 $270.52 33%

Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,904 1,674 $265.14 32%

Guayama, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 49 38 $188.52 32%

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 876 518 $295.44 35%

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,502 1,556 $422.91 32%

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,356 858 $427.93 33%

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,617 974 $310.54 32%

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 361 231 $411.53 34%

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,040 5,113 $456.39 36%

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 370 220 $240.61 31%

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,574 950 $241.91 31%

Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 166 102 $241.04 30%

Holland-Grand Haven, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,098 680 $303.86 33%

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,950 2,554 $769.25 32%

Hot Springs, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 231 137 $325.55 35%

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 401 234 $246.28 30%

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,297 14,787 $289.90 34%

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 395 237 $233.36 35%

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 955 573 $233.08 29%

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 470 276 $262.16 26%

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,990 4,742 $274.50 31%

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 181 101 $310.49 31%

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 76 47 $350.23 35%

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 989 584 $284.60 35%

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,482 1,517 $250.02 31%

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 442 250 $229.82 31%

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 15,084 9,258 $371.77 35%

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 268 155 $263.80 28%

Janesville, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 798 548 $268.07 34%

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 221 153 $213.70 30%

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 421 236 $248.05 31%

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 163 87 $162.17 24%

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 138 66 $250.57 32%

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 397 210 $198.86 31%

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,289 798 $304.68 36%

Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 568 396 $353.65 36%

Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,618 5,429 $312.88 34%

Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 567 324 $269.23 31%
41

 Metropolitan Statistical Area Trials Started Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % 

of Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 427 229 $220.19 29%

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 561 320 $230.15 32%

Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,327 852 $494.40 38%

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,560 1,485 $260.68 30%

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 392 230 $222.08 32%

La Crosse, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 221 138 $260.10 28%

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 352 230 $258.06 33%

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 700 406 $244.35 29%

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 417 237 $234.21 31%

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,007 1,232 $409.10 35%

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,884 4,146 $374.72 36%

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,584 989 $307.81 30%

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,357 1,414 $309.06 35%

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 864 468 $291.33 36%

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 516 320 $331.52 30%

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 42,328 25,384 $530.68 39%

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 239 142 $307.63 31%

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 140 87 $198.58 29%

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 395 242 $296.66 30%

Lewiston, ID-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 142 92 $274.55 26%

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 478 303 $331.67 33%

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,272 741 $295.52 34%

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 300 185 $240.94 36%

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 584 341 $265.50 32%

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,834 1,002 $244.38 30%

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 294 200 $323.14 28%

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 250 122 $229.32 33%

Longview, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 607 390 $384.98 33%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 146,777 101,847 $822.10 39%

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,875 2,906 $268.09 33%

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 287 153 $231.12 32%

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 677 399 $241.37 27%

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,242 762 $273.33 35%

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,467 1,605 $512.25 38%

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,659 1,066 $396.43 34%

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,047 2,006 $480.97 34%

Manhattan, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 114 68 $302.72 29%

Mankato-North Mankato, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 252 146 $297.88 29%

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 443 275 $234.50 33%

Mayaguez, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 95 77 $237.80 37%

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,021 1,076 $253.34 34%

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,841 1,165 $465.49 35%

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,093 6,345 $296.11 35%

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,735 2,349 $534.60 38%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 112,317 72,217 $551.70 43%

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 507 310 $256.05 33%

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 139 61 $248.56 28%

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,463 5,290 $360.74 37%

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 28,460 17,458 $451.36 36%

Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 405 232 $406.60 31%

Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,869 1,088 $259.93 35%

Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,808 6,406 $571.63 37%

Monroe, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 341 195 $208.09 27%

Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,164 711 $356.95 35%

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,238 742 $232.38 29%

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 73 46 $386.24 39%

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 442 271 $279.74 33%

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 717 462 $523.34 37%
42

 Metropolitan Statistical Area Trials Started Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % 

of Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 275 156 $187.86 28%

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 917 557 $243.46 35%

Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,265 1,411 $390.25 36%

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,521 1,071 $838.72 36%

Naples-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,868 2,352 $618.11 42%

Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,629 4,553 $313.82 32%

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,700 4,992 $485.18 36%

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,233 3,805 $336.76 35%

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 143,330 93,653 $826.07 40%

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 694 442 $275.58 34%

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL MSA 8,090 4,989 $479.19 40%

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,973 1,281 $486.43 37%

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,602 2,289 $363.80 37%

Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 835 530 $482.70 33%

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 129 51 $176.02 25%

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,673 1,663 $366.33 28%

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,923 1,613 $256.96 32%

Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,449 967 $443.04 32%

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,661 1,597 $272.91 33%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL MSA 40,446 24,949 $463.03 39%

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 397 242 $280.40 35%

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 193 102 $195.49 32%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,955 7,064 $848.65 36%

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,888 4,219 $403.69 38%

Palm Coast, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,734 1,122 $424.32 37%

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 933 560 $384.91 36%

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 230 136 $225.06 34%

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 554 338 $244.75 31%

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,475 1,521 $312.04 34%

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 686 407 $220.38 33%

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 39,994 25,030 $407.15 33%

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ MSA 71,189 41,484 $461.25 37%

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 126 64 $231.08 34%

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,214 3,643 $268.51 34%

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 332 220 $330.76 32%

Pocatello, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 258 161 $255.62 31%

Ponce, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 182 141 $251.08 40%

Port St. Lucie, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,943 4,855 $464.94 39%

Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,535 2,343 $444.91 35%

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA MSA 16,822 10,525 $484.18 35%

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,713 4,101 $574.94 36%

Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,124 1,297 $446.49 36%

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 14,961 10,023 $544.18 38%

Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,947 2,474 $466.06 32%

Pueblo, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 854 538 $267.13 33%

Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,887 1,177 $447.00 42%

Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,086 689 $351.03 35%

Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,490 3,232 $344.80 32%

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 261 134 $310.18 33%

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,918 1,218 $342.07 32%

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,618 1,069 $448.62 34%

Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,180 3,817 $526.84 36%

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,793 5,426 $375.85 32%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 97,156 64,443 $644.62 37%

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,102 667 $278.28 31%

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 591 367 $328.33 33%

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,341 1,429 $266.67 36%

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,107 1,313 $324.85 37%
43

 Metropolitan Statistical Area Trials Started Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % 

of Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 575 329 $261.58 35%

Rome, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 303 167 $231.10 30%

Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 32,935 21,785 $615.95 36%

Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 703 416 $264.43 36%

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,346 1,519 $388.45 34%

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,556 3,235 $880.63 40%

Salisbury, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 767 498 $359.70 33%

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,502 5,571 $429.28 33%

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 93 50 $182.47 26%

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX MSA 5,512 2,990 $260.42 32%

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 33,336 22,939 $771.27 36%

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 39,180 27,974 $881.87 38%

San German-Cabo Rojo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 95 77 $241.57 33%

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 13,008 8,956 $972.03 38%

San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,425 3,545 $304.72 38%

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,146 1,489 $776.03 37%

Sandusky, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 346 212 $272.57 34%

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,539 2,514 $741.21 38%

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,926 1,413 $989.64 39%

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 882 575 $516.45 35%

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,470 3,885 $818.49 37%

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,200 1,179 $329.07 34%

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,972 1,214 $284.99 35%

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 28,907 18,920 $565.15 34%

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,738 1,066 $413.48 39%

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 348 203 $275.50 31%

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 253 155 $228.31 32%

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,155 667 $238.79 31%

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 277 149 $230.54 35%

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 426 229 $226.49 25%

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,438 902 $254.66 34%

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,318 745 $247.89 31%

Spokane, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,148 1,383 $327.25 32%

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 270 171 $246.19 35%

Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,113 2,562 $371.07 34%

Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,198 722 $261.59 33%

Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 487 303 $258.31 37%

St. Cloud, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 756 468 $322.40 31%

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,628 1,008 $539.91 37%

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 298 161 $247.20 35%

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 16,899 10,033 $305.76 35%

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 238 125 $381.55 36%

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV MSA 210 123 $200.97 33%

Stockton, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 13,816 9,084 $657.58 38%

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 364 183 $226.35 33%

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,152 669 $263.51 35%

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,857 1,171 $331.55 31%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 33,768 20,717 $409.84 38%

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 252 159 $226.00 37%

Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 82 $192.53 28%

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,292 2,107 $258.24 35%

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 436 253 $227.01 28%

Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,289 1,473 $486.68 36%

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,306 5,720 $368.41 35%

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,413 1,301 $249.72 32%

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 541 309 $289.22 31%

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 374 196 $314.62 34%

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 497 301 $246.68 34%
44

 Metropolitan Statistical Area Trials Started Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % 

of Pre-Modification 

Payment

Appendix 7: HAMP Activity by MSA

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 299 174 $286.52 31%

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,750 6,096 $737.97 37%

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 77 37 $265.31 36%

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,022 631 $366.12 35%

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,221 6,417 $396.60 31%

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,706 3,636 $427.28 36%

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 325 162 $211.55 32%

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 437 236 $280.40 33%

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 70,555 44,655 $647.16 36%

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 321 190 $214.07 34%

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 281 181 $301.80 36%

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 406 270 $368.60 29%

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 193 108 $170.45 29%

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 117 58 $185.57 33%

Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,329 702 $233.38 32%

Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 215 134 $208.58 29%

Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,244 1,297 $386.48 35%

Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,226 771 $460.03 31%

Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,176 1,291 $273.50 32%

Worcester, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,126 4,627 $511.29 36%

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 636 366 $292.17 32%

Yauco, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 47 36 $210.93 36%

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,456 1,518 $371.68 32%

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,976 1,153 $256.65 36%

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,271 1,371 $502.25 36%

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,727 1,136 $343.05 35%