Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT 

THROUGH THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2015
More than 2.5 Million Homeowner Assistance Actions have taken place under 

Making Home Affordable (MHA) programs

2

MHA AT-A-GLANCE

1MP

Q4: 37.6K

PTD: 2.0M

See Page 4

FOURTH QUARTER 2015 SERVICER ASSESSMENT RESULTS

2MP

Q4: 2.2K

 PTD: 155K

See Page 14

HAFA

Q4: 13.9K

PTD: 404K

See Page 15

UP

Q4: 0.3K

PTD: 45K

See Page 16

SERVICER

MINOR 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

MODERATE 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

SUBSTANTIAL 

IMPROVEMENT 

NEEDED

Bank of America, N.A. 

CitiMortgage, Inc. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

QUARTERLY PROGRAM VOLUMES FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2015

(Months of October, November, and December)

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

On December 18, 2015, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 , P.L. 114-113 

(the Act). The Act provides that the MHA program will terminate on December 31, 2016, except with 

respect to certain loan modification applications made before that date. The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury will provide guidance and clarifications for homeowners and servicers in the coming months.
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

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

to Congress. For information and quarterly updates about efforts taken by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) 

beyond their participation in MHA which is not reflected in this report please visit the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s 

Foreclosure Prevention Report. For information on efforts undertaken by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) please 

visit its website.

3

Table of Contents

PROGRAM UPDATES

MHA Updates 4

Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) Updates 5

HAMP PROGRAM RESULTS:

HAMP Summary 6

HAMP Application Outcomes 6

HAMP Modification Characteristics 7

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 8

Performance of Permanent HAMP Modifications 9-10

Homeowners with Disqualified Modifications 10

Drivers of HAMP Performance 11

OTHER MHA PROGRAMS:

Post-Modification Counseling 12

Principal Reduction Alternative 13

2MP Program 14

HAFA Program 15

Unemployment Program 16

RESULTS BY SERVICER:

MHA Program Activity by Servicer and Investor 17

Servicer Assessment Results 18-24

APPENDIX:

Program and Servicer Assessment Notes A-1

Compliance Criteria Tested A-2

Terms and Methodologies A-3

End Notes A-4

HAMP Activity by State A-5

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

HAMP Performance Data by Vintage A-7

HAMP Activity by MSA A-8
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Program-to-Date Q4 2015 QoQ % Change

MHA First Lien Permanent Modifications Started 1,950,017 37,557 -26%

HAMP Tier 1 1,420,995 11,023 -17%

HAMP Tier 2 144,728 12,657 -18%

GSE Standard Modifications (SAI) 277,329 7,590 -18%

Treasury FHA and RD HAMP 106,965 6,287 -51%

2MP Modifications Started 154,683 2,241 -22%

HAFA Transactions Completed 403,843 13,884 -14%

UP Forbearance Plans Started 44,990 348 -45%

Cumulative Activity 2,553,533 54,030 -23%

MHA Program Updates

4

*Derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association Quarterly National Delinquency Survey.

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Delinquent Loans

(Millions)

Permanent Modifications

(Thousands)

Quarterly Trending of MHA Permanent Modifications Started 

& Estimated Number of Loans 60+ Days Delinquent*

HAMP TIER 1 NON-GSE HAMP TIER 1 GSE HAMP TIER 2 GSE SAI FHA/RD-HAMP 60+ Days DLQ

• During the fourth quarter of 2015, participating servicers prepared to implement Streamline HAMP with a 

January 1, 2016 effective date. This included establishing a written policy consistent with investor guidelines, 

evaluating servicing portfolios for eligibility, and determining the date by which the servicer will begin making 

Streamline HAMP offers to borrowers.

• The MHA Servicer Assessment results for the fourth quarter of 2015 begin on page 18. Servicers either 

sustained or improved their overall performance, as compared to the prior quarter. Two servicers moved 

from needing moderate improvement to needing minor improvement. One servicer moved from needing 

substantial improvement to needing moderate improvement, resulting in the release of previously withheld 

financial incentive payments. The other four servicers were found to require moderate improvement. 

MHA Program Activity
Making Home Affordable

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

5

The Hardest Hit Fund Program (HHF) currently provides $7.6 billion to 18 states and the District of Columbia to develop 

locally tailored programs to assist struggling homeowners in their communities. In February 2016, the Treasury announced 

that it will commit up to $2 billion to existing HHF participants, as authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2016. For more details, click here.

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

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

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

stabilize housing markets.

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

Hardest Hit Fund Program Update

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

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

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

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

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

needs, including assistance through MHA and HHF programs.

• In addition, the Homeowner’s HOPE HotlineTM includes information about HHF assistance in its scripting. When a 

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

assistance information and a referral to the state’s HFA. 

11.8K

 56.2K

 21.1K

 4.2K

 29.3K

 14.0K 6.9K

24.5K

7.6K

7.4K

3.6K

4.4K 7.4K

10.4K

5.3K

24.8K

6.0K

DC:

0.7K

3.1K

Key:

-Unique Applicants Assisted

HHF States Have Assisted Nearly 250,000 Homeowners

(Program activity through December 31, 2015)

Source: Q4 2015 HHF Quarterly Performance Reports
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

HAMP Summary

Trial

Modifications

All Trials Started1 2,395,672

 Tier 1 2,221,979

 Tier 2 173,693

Active Trials 30,844

Trial Modifications Cancelled Since Verified Income Requirement* 101,858

Permanent 

Modifications

All Permanent Modifications Started 1,565,723

Permanent Modifications Disqualified (Cumulative)** 507,359

Active Permanent Modifications 979,976

6

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

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

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

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

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

modifications, which substantially reduced the number of trial cancellations. Prior to that date, 697,247 trials were cancelled, for a 

cumulative 799,105 trials cancelled program-to-date. 

** Does not include 74,398 loans paid off and 3,990 loans withdrawn.

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

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

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

• 22% were referred to foreclosure.

Outcome for Homeowners Who Did Not Receive a HAMP Modification

4%

2%

34%

24%

14%

3%

19%

Status of Homeowners Not Accepted for a HAMP Trial Modification or 

Those Whose HAMP Trial Modification was Cancelled

Action Pending

Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 

Borrower Current / Loan Payoff

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure Starts

Foreclosure Completions

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Select HAMP Modification Characteristics*

7

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

at approximately $41 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.

*HAMP modification characteristics reflect data at the date of modification.

Select Median Permanent Modification Characteristics 

Loan 

Characteristic

Before 

Modification

After 

Modification

Median 

Decrease

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 43.9% 31.0% -13.4 pct pts

 Tier 2 28.1% 21.1% -6.6 pct pts

 All 43.1% 31.0% -12.5 pct pts

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio

 Tier 1 67.5% 50.4% -13.7 pct pts

 Tier 2 44.0% 36.6% -6.6 pct pts

 All 65.3% 48.9% -12.8 pct pts

Monthly Housing Payment**

 Tier 1 $1,384.17 $815.01 ($499.97)

 Tier 2 $1,037.03 $670.98 ($331.03)

 All $1,352.86 $802.51 ($479.67)

Modification Steps for Permanent Modifications

Modification Step Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Interest Rate Reduction 95.8% 70.7% 93.5%

Term Extension 59.9% 83.5% 62.1%

Principal Forbearance 31.0% 32.3% 31.1%

All permanent modifications reflect some combination of 

the following modification steps:

HAMP Tier 2 provides another modification opportunity 

for struggling homeowners who do not qualify for a 

HAMP Tier 1 modification, or for those who lose good 

standing (by missing three payments) on their HAMP 

Tier 1 modification. Of the HAMP Tier 2 trial 

modifications started:

• 27% were previously in a HAMP Tier 1 trial or 

permanent modification.

• 11% were previously evaluated for HAMP Tier 1 

and did not meet eligibility requirements.

• 6% were non-owner-occupied properties. 

Characteristic Tier 1 Tier 2 All

Median Monthly Gross 

Income $3,912 $5,019 $3,995 

Median Credit Score 566 560 565

Median Property Value $177,400 $150,000 $175,000 

Additional HAMP Tier 2 Characteristics

Homeowner Characteristics

**Excludes the impact of any interest rate increases and re-amortization of capitalized homeowner 

incentives which may begin to occur after the fifth year of the HAMP Tier 1 modification.
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey (PMMS) rate at time of modification is reached (PMMS averaged 5.04% in 2009 and 3.85% in 2015), at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

after the final interest rate increase is $206.

• Through December 2015, approximately 287,000 homeowners have experienced an interest rate step-up. 

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

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

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

HAMP Tier 1 Payment Adjustment Summary 

* As of December 2015. Assumes no future re-defaults of HAMP Tier 1 modifications. 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Number of Loans

Number of Interest Rate Increases by Quarter*

First Increase Second Increase Third Increase Fourth Increase

See Appendix 6 for additional information on HAMP Tier 1 interest rate increases by state. 8
Making Home Affordable: HAMP Program Results

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Performance of HAMP Permanent Modifications 

HAMP Tier 1

# Months 

Post 

Modification 

% of Disqualified HAMP Tier 1 Modifications3

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Q1 

2015

Q2 

2015

Q3 

2015

Q4 

2015 ALL

3 2.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 1.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3%

6 6.7% 6.7% 5.3% 4.3% 3.8% 4.6% 4.3% 5.5% 5.9% 5.5%

12 16.3% 15.5% 12.7% 10.3% 9.4% 10.5% 10.9% 13.1%

18 22.9% 22.7% 18.9% 15.3% 14.0% 14.7% 19.3%

24 28.8% 28.0% 23.7% 19.1% 17.2% 16.9% 24.3%

30 33.3% 32.6% 27.3% 22.1% 20.0% 28.5%

36 37.6% 36.5% 30.0% 24.6% 22.2% 32.5%

42 41.1% 39.3% 32.4% 27.7% 35.9%

48 43.6% 41.6% 34.6% 30.3% 39.0%

54 46.0% 43.5% 37.9% 42.3%

60 47.9% 45.5% 40.9% 45.6%

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

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

HAMP Tier 1 and Tier 2.

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

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

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

# Months 

Post 

Modification 

% of Disqualified HAMP Tier 2 Modifications3

2012 2013 2014 Q1 

2015

Q2 

2015

Q3

2015

Q4 

2015 ALL

3

N/A

1.3% 1.9% 1.7% 1.2% 1.6% 2.1% 2.0% 1.7%

6 5.3% 7.7% 7.0% 6.5% 8.4% 9.1% 7.4%

12 17.2% 17.2% 16.1% 15.9% 16.5%

18 23.1% 24.4% 22.5% 23.6%

24 28.6% 28.8% 27.8% 28.7%

30 32.0% 32.3% 32.3%

36 34.3% 38.2% 35.8%

See Appendix 7 for additional information on HAMP performance by vintage. 9

HAMP Tier 1 Performance by Investor

Modifications of private label security loans have the 

highest delinquency rates, followed by modifications of 

portfolio loans and GSE loans. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

GSE Portfolio Private

HAMP Tier 2 Performance by Prior Modification History

Modifications that were previously modified under HAMP 

Tier 1 have a higher likelihood of disqualifying from the 

subsequent Tier 2 modification. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

With Prior Tier 1 Modification

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Homeowners with Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications

10

8%

4%

15%

34%

14%

7%

18%

Status of Disqualified HAMP Permanent Modifications 

Action Pending

Action Not Allowed – Bankruptcy in Process 

Borrower Current / Loan Payoff

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Foreclosure Starts

Foreclosure Completions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Survey data from large servicers2

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

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

loans active in month 6 that disqualified by month 9.

Note: A modification's inclusion in the 3-month re-default rate calculation is conditional on the modification being active at the start of the 3-month 

period being measured.

Incremental Performance of HAMP Modifications over Time

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

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

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

3-Month Re-default Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

Conditional Re-default Rate by Modification Year

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

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

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

homeowner’s credit score at the time of modification. 

Performance by Monthly Payment Reduction

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

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

to missing three payments, compared to a disqualification rate of nearly 39% where the payment had been cut by 20% or 

less.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

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

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

11

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

Homeowners who were 31 to 90 days delinquent at the 

start of the HAMP trial period experienced a 21.8% redefault rate in the subsequent 24 months, compared to 

28.2% for homeowners whose delinquency was between 

121 and 210 days at trial start.

Homeowners with credit scores between 580-619 at the 

time of modification experienced a 19.5% re-default rate 

in the subsequent 24 months, compared to a rate of 

10.1% for homeowners whose credit scores were above 

660.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

<= 30 Days 31 - 90 Days

91 - 120 Days 121 - 210 Days

> 210 Days

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

90+ Day Delinquency Rate

Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Post-Modification Counseling

Counseling Referral Activity by Servicer

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

of referrals and individual servicer program design. 

% of Referrals 

Who Take Up 

Counseling

3% 9% 17% 2% 5% 9% 9% 10%

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Bank of

America, N.A.

CitiMortgage,

Inc.

JPMorgan

Chase Bank,

N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select

Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A.

Other

Servicers

At-Risk New Trials

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

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

modification and are determined to be at risk of re-default. The counseling is designed to help homeowners stay in their 

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

homeowner to default on his or her mortgage loan. 

Through December 2015, participating servicers have made more than 370,000 referrals to financial counseling. Of 

these:

• 58% are permanent modifications considered by the servicers to be at risk of disqualifying from HAMP, 

and 42% are new trial modifications.

• More than 27,000 referrals started financial counseling resulting in an overall take-up rate of 7.4%.

12
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

42% 42%

45%

53%

61%

65%

71% 77%

77%

72% 73%

76%

73%

70% 70% 71% 72% 69% 71% 70%

66%

84%

74%

65% 60%

66%

53%

60% 61% 64% 67%

61% 61% 61% 64%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Q4

2010

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

2011

Q4

2011

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

2012

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2013

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2014

Q1

2015

Q2

2015

Q3

2015

Q4

2015

Trials Started with Principal Reduction as 

a % of Eligible Loans 

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

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 205,836 52,556 258,392

Active Permanent Modifications 152,766 39,049 191,815

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications Started5 $66,578 $53,210 $63,135 

Median Principal Amount Reduced for Permanent 

Modifications Started (%)6 32.4% 18.0% 30.6%

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Reduced on 

Permanent Modifications Started5 $18,296,244,323 $3,433,778,864 $21,730,023,187 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reduction can be recognized immediately. 

The HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative

Modification Characteristics: HAMP vs. HAMP with Principal Reduction

All HAMP Modifications Total HAMP Modifications with 

Principal Reduction

Permanent Modifications – Median LTV ratio:

- Before Modification 116.3% 142.2%

- After Modification 115.0% 105.0%

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

- Front-End DTI 43.1% 42.4%

- Back-End DTI 65.3% 54.3%

13
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

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

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

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

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

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

and principal forbearance or forgiveness. 

All Second Lien Modifications Started (Cumulative)* 154,683

Second Lien Modifications Involving Full Lien Extinguishments 44,789

Active Second Lien Modifications** 83,266

Active Second Lien Modifications Involving Partial Lien Extinguishments 10,812

* Includes 7,136 loans that have a qualifying first lien GSE Standard Modification.

** Includes 8,845 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 Liens8

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

Bank of America, N.A. 37,084 3,037

CitiMortgage, Inc. 19,657 2,541

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 42,922 1,569

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 8,043 1,339

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 23,657 4,790

Other Servicers 23,320 2,405

Total 154,683 15,681

Median Monthly Payment Reduction:

Second lien official modifications

Reduction on second lien only $153 

Combined first and second lien reduction $766 

% of total monthly payment 41%

Second lien full extinguishments

Combined first and second lien reduction $970 

% of total monthly payment 51%

Debt Extinguishment:

HAMP homeowners receiving partial or full extinguishment

Total Outstanding Principal Balance Extinguished $3.4B

Top Three States by Activity:

Percent of Total 2MP Modifications Started

California 34%

Florida 10%

New York 7%

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

2MP Modification Characteristics7

14
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program

In 15% of HAFA transactions completed, the 

homeowner began a HAMP trial modification but later 

requested a HAFA agreement or was disqualified from 

HAMP.

Top Three States by 

HAFA Activity:

% of HAFA Transactions 

Completed

California 35%

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 $274,470 

Median Sales Price $165,000 

Median Debt Relief $123,787 

Median Debt Relief as % of UPB 47%

Total Debt Relief (cumulative) $27.1B

% of HAFA transactions completed that included 

release of a homeowner’s subordinate liens 40%

Total subordinate liens released (cumulative) $526.8M

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

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

fully released from liability for subordinate liens. 

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

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

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

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

transactions, homeowners who need to relocate:

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

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

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

mortgage debt; and

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

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

Private Portfolio GSE Total

Short Sale 142,514 49,830 159,627 351,971

Deed-in-Lieu 8,826 4,049 38,997 51,872

Total Transactions Completed 151,340 53,879 198,624 403,843

15
Making Home Affordable: Other MHA Programs

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

The Home Affordable Unemployment Program

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

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

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

they will lose their homes to foreclosure.

All UP Forbearance Plans Started 44,990

UP Forbearance Plans With Some Payment Required 38,329

UP Forbearance Plans With No Payment Required 6,661

UP Activity by State

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

California 24%

Florida 7%

Illinois 5%

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

3%

2%

2%

16%

1%

23%

23%

30%

Status of Homeowners Who Completed an UP Forbearance Plan

Foreclosure Started

Foreclosure Completed

Short Sale / Deed-in-Lieu

Alternative Modification / Payment Plan

UP Forbearance Plan Extension

New HAMP Trial

Borrower Current / Loan Paid Off

Other*

16
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

17

Making Home Affordable Program Activity by Servicer

Servicer 

HAMP Tier 1 

Permanent 

Modifications

HAMP Tier 2 

Permanent 

Modifications

PRA9 Permanent 

Modifications

2MP 

Modifications

HAFA10 non-GSE 

Transactions 

Completed

Bank of America, N.A. 100,285 4,056 5,715 37,084 49,238

CitiMortgage, Inc. 38,608 4,499 4,023 19,657 2,219

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 171,191 2,438 24,500 42,922 37,397

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 173,799 17,943 10,370 8,043 8,962

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 249,166 62,000 96,949 N/A 25,337

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 89,676 18,587 15,692 N/A 19,229

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 201,587 9,937 30,915 23,657 38,675

Other Servicers 396,683 25,268 17,672 23,320 24,162

Total 1,420,995 144,728 205,836 154,683 205,219

As of December 2015, there are 130 servicers that participate in Treasury’s MHA programs, but seven servicers make up 

over 85% 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. 39,524 46,525 18,292 104,341

CitiMortgage, Inc. 17,855 8,999 16,253 43,107

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 75,821 57,814 39,994 173,629

Nationstar Mortgage LLC 113,578 71,612 6,552 191,742

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 34,605 254,513 22,048 311,166

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 673 94,184 13,406 108,263

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 81,418 44,066 86,040 211,524

Other Servicers 286,550 67,809 67,592 421,951

Total 650,024 645,522 270,177 1,565,723
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Background

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

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

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

reviews. MHA-C examines as many as 60 compliance criteria (see Appendix 2) and tests between 400 and 600 loan files 

each quarter at each of the largest servicers. Loan samples are randomly selected for testing from two sources: the MHA 

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

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

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

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

compliance review to Treasury and the servicer. Treasury requires servicers to take remedial actions which include, but are 

not limited to: identifying and re-evaluating any affected loans, performing retroactive analysis when an issue is potentially 

systemic, and enhancing the effectiveness of internal controls.

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

agent on behalf of Treasury. Treasury does not regulate these institutions and does not have the authority to impose fines 

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

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

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

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

program, include payments for permanent modifications under HAMP and completed transactions under HAFA.

MHA Servicer Assessments

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

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

reviews and rate servicers on the level of improvement needed. In addition, the assessments include program data 

reported by servicers into the MHA system of record. These program results are key indicators of how timely and 

effectively servicers assist eligible homeowners and report program data to Treasury. The assessments do not rate the 

servicer based on program results, but compare each servicer’s performance for a given quarter against the other large 

servicers participating in the program.

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

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

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

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

completeness of interest rate step-up notices; the consolidation of two “second look” metrics; the removal of the nonapproval metric; and tightened performance benchmarks. 

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

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

issues) in determining whether a servicer needs substantial, moderate or minor improvement to its overall performance 

under MHA. For servicers in need of substantial improvement, Treasury will, absent extenuating circumstances, withhold 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Home Affordable Servicer Assessments

18
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Improvement Needed Servicer Name

Minor

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Moderate

Bank of America, N.A.

CitiMortgage, Inc.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Substantial None

4th Quarter 2015 Servicer Assessment Summary Results

19

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

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

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

required for a determination of minor improvement.

After considering all relevant factors, including performance in areas previously requiring substantial improvement, 

servicer incentives withheld from Nationstar Mortgage, LLC beginning last quarter will be released in March 2016.
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

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

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

that did not have a desired outcome. Please refer to Appendix 1 for more information concerning the metrics described 

below.

Compliance Metrics Overview 

20

Category Metric Benchmark

 Identifying and 

Contacting 

Homeowners

Assesses whether the 

servicer identifies and 

communicates 

appropriately with 

potentially eligible MHA 

homeowners.



Single Point of Contact Assignment %

Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not 

concur that the servicer had assigned a Single Point of 

Contact to a homeowner in accordance with MHA 

guidelines

2.0%



Second Look % Noncompliance 

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not 

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

MHA eligibility determination for applicable programs

2.0%

 Homeowner Evaluation 

and Assistance

Assesses whether servicer 

correctly evaluates 

homeowners' eligibility for 

MHA programs and 

communicates decisions 

timely. 



Income Calculation Error % 

Percentage of loans for which MHA-C's income 

calculation differs from the servicer's by more than 5% 

for applicable programs

2.0%



Timely HAMP Evaluation % Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed for which MHA-C 

determined the servicer did not complete the 

evaluation within the prescribed time frame for reasons 

within the servicer’s control

2.0%

 Program Management 

and Reporting

Assesses whether the 

servicer has effective 

program management, 

submits timely and accurate 

program reports and 

information and whether 

the servicer accurately and 

timely communicates 

interest rate step-ups.



Incentive Payment Data Errors 

Average percentage of differences in calculated 

incentives resulting from data discrepancies between 

servicer files and the MHA system of record for 

applicable programs

2.0%



Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C did not 

concur with servicer's processing of defaulted HAMP 

modifications, in accordance with MHA guidelines

2.0%



Interest Rate Step-Up Changes

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C noted 

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

application in the loan payment history

5.0%



Interest Rate Step-Up Notices

Percentage of loans reviewed where MHA-C noted that 

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

not in accordance with MHA guidelines

5.0%
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

21

4th Quarter 2015 Compliance Results

Servicer 

Single Point 

of Contact 

Assignment 

% Noncompliance

Second 

Look %

Noncompliance

Income 

Calculation

Error %

Timely HAMP 

Evaluation % 

Noncompliance

Incentive 

Payment 

Data Errors

Disqualified 

Modification 

% Noncompliance

Interest Rate 

Step-Up 

Changes % 

Noncompliance

Interest Rate 

Step-Up 

Notices % 

Noncompliance

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

Bank of 

America, N.A.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.5% 11.0% 1.5% 1.1% 2.0% 0.0% 3.5%

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

CitiMortgage, 

Inc.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 1.8% 2.0% 0.0% 0.3% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

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

JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, 

N.A.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 2.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 14.0%

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

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 4.7% 3.0% 0.8% 3.3% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

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

Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 3.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.6% 3.8% 0.0% 2.0%

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

Select 

Portfolio 

Servicing, Inc.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

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

Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A.

Servicer 

Results 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% 1.5%

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

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

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

Compliance Results Trending

22

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

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

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

Note: When calculating error percentages from prior quarter’s published figures, it may result in a slightly different percentage 

due to rounding.

Servicer 

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2014

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2015

Q1

2015

Q2

2015

Q3

2015

Q4

Single Point of Contact Assignment % Noncompliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2.9% 3.4% 3.9% 6.7% 4.2% 6.7% 0.0% 3.0% 4.3% 0.0%

Second Look % Noncompliance (Combined)*

Bank of America, N.A. 0.0% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.5% 2.3% 0.5%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 5.6% 4.3% 1.4% 15.2% 4.2% 3.7% 4.9% 2.5% 0.5% 1.8%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 3.0% 1.4% 2.3% 0.5% 0.9% 1.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 0.0% 1.5% 6.9% 9.5% 6.4% 4.7%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 2.3% 4.8% 3.5% 1.6% 3.1% 1.0% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 3.1%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 1.7% 5.7% 1.2% 0.6% 2.3% 2.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.5%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 4.4% 3.1% 2.6% 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 3.4% 2.3% 1.8%

Income Calculation Error %

Bank of America, N.A. 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 6.0% 16.0% 11.0%

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

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

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 3.0% 3.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 5.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0%

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

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

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

Incentive Payment Data Errors**

Bank of America, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 2.5% 2.6% 1.1%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 1.7% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5% 1.0% 1.3% 0.3%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 3.4% 0.6% 1.7% 2.0% 0.2% 1.0% 1.5% 0.7% 3.3%

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 0.5% 1.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6%

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 0.5% 1.0% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 2.2% 1.2% 1.6% 0.8% 0.7%

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

Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance 

Bank of America, N.A. 0.0% 10.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.8% 0.8% 2.3% 5.0% 2.0%

CitiMortgage, Inc. 10.0% 3.3% 16.0% 6.0% 12.0% 8.8% 2.3% 3.8% 6.0% 4.0%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0%

Nationstar Mortgage LLC N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 6.8% 2.0% 0.8% 3.0% 0.0%

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

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 6.7% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 8.0% 6.8% 9.3% 2.8% 1.8% 0.8%
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Trials Aged 6+ Months (% of Active Trials)11

Average Calendar Days to Resolve Escalated Cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage,

Inc.

JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A.

% of Active Trials 6+ Months

Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Bank of

America, N.A.

CitiMortgage,

Inc.

JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A.

# Days

Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015

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

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

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

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

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

permanent modifications in subsequent reporting periods.

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

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

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

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

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

calculation of servicer time to resolve escalations.

Program Results

23

Q1’15 210 319 279 1,640 1,123 385 503

Q2’15 264 256 255 436 670 142 411

Q3’15 182 262 244 556 437 145 381

Q4’15 205 276 216 637 194 183 388

Average # Aged Trials
Making Home Affordable: Results by Servicer

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage,

Inc.

JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A.

% Reported Timely

Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015

Missing Permanent Modification Status Reports (%)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

Bank of America,

N.A.

CitiMortgage,

Inc.

JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A.

Nationstar

Mortgage LLC

Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC

Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc.

Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A.

% Missing

Q1 2015

Q2 2015

Q3 2015

Q4 2015

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

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

performance analysis.

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

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

guidance may impact missing permanent modification status reporting.

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

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

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

transparency. 

24

Program Results
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

under Treasury FHA-HAMP guidelines. 

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

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

eligible first lien modification on the same property.

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

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

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

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

General MHA Program Notes:

MHA Program Effective Dates:

HAMP First Lien: April 6, 2009

PRA: October 1, 2010

2MP: August 13, 2009

HAFA: April 5, 2010

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

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

MHA First Lien Program Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treasury FHA-HAMP Program Notes: 

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

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

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

25
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

2MP Program Notes:

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

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

reflected in “Other Servicers.”

Homeowners with an active first lien permanent modification and a second lien (2MP) modification realize a higher monthly payment 

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

unpaid principal balance.

HAFA Program Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

transaction.

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

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

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

PRA Program Notes:

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

principal reduction on their modification.

Servicer Assessment Notes:

Treasury’s foremost goal is to assist struggling homeowners who may be eligible for MHA. This population represents only a portion of 

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

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

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

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

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

(CFPB), or by state authorities. 

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

against specific metrics. Although the compliance reviews that form the basis for the servicer assessments emphasize objective 

measurements and observed facts, compliance reviews still involve a certain level of judgment. Compliance reviews are also 

retrospective in nature – looking backward, not forward, which means that activities identified as needing improvement in a given 

quarter may already be under remediation by the servicer. In addition, the compliance reviews use “sampling” as a testing 

methodology. Sampling, an industry-accepted auditing technique, looks at a subset of a particular population of transactions, rather 

than the entirety of the population of transactions, to assess a servicer’s overall performance in that particular activity.

26
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Compliance Metrics

Single Point of Contact Assignment % Noncompliance:

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

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

and otherwise in accordance with MHA guidelines. 

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

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

homeowners in a timely fashion.

Second Look % Noncompliance:

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

and accuracy of the servicer’s homeowner outreach and eligibility review in order to verify that the homeowner was properly 

considered, denied or deemed ineligible for receiving a permanent modification. This metric measures the combined percentage of 

loans reviewed in Second Look where MHA-C disagreed with a servicer’s solicitation efforts and/or eligibility review and for which 

MHA-C is not able to determine, based on the documentation provided, whether the homeowner was properly considered, denied or 

deemed ineligible for receiving a permanent modification.

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

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

support solicitation efforts and eligibility determination, and, if applicable, engaging in systemic process remediation. All loans 

categorized as noncompliant remain on foreclosure hold until the servicer completes the appropriate corrective actions.

Income Calculation Error %:

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

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

Monthly Gross Income, allowing for up to a 2% differential from MHA-C’s calculations. 

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

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

staff training on income calculation. 

Timely HAMP Evaluation % Noncompliance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

27
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 1: Program and Servicer Assessment Notes

Incentive Payment Data Errors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

places in the program system of record. 

Disqualified Modification % Noncompliance:

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

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

modifications, in accordance with MHA guidelines. 

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

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

Interest Rate Step-up Changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interest Rate Step-up Notices:

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

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

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

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

not include the required elements.

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

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

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

borrower.

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

28
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric

Identifying and Contacting Homeowners

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

HAMP Solicitation

Second Look Servicer appropriately solicited borrowers for HAMP and that the 

Directed Actions servicer met the reasonable efforts requirements

Second Lien Solicitation Second Look Servicer has solicited borrowers with second liens for which a HAMP 

modification exists on the first lien

Initial Packages sent after Right 

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

RPC

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

letter to potentially eligible borrowers following RPC

Content of Borrower Notices Second Look Borrower Notices contained required information

Timely Acknowledgement 

Letter sent Second Look

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

Acknowledgement Letter to the borrower within the required time 

frame

Accuracy of Incomplete 

Information Notice (IIN) sent, 

where applicable

Second Look

Upon receiving part of a HAMP Package but not all required information, 

servicer sent an Incomplete Information Notice to the borrower listing 

documentation still needed

Timely mailing of IIN, where 

applicable Second Look Servicer sent Incomplete Information Notices within required time frame

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

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

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

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

within 10 days of decision

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

Administrator

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

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

receiving a HAMP modification 

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

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

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

limits

Completed Request for 

Mortgage Assistance or 

Hardship Affidavit

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

Affidavit

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

29
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric

Completeness of full 

underwriting package

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive Servicer obtained a completed package to underwrite modification

Accuracy of Income calculation Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer correctly calculated borrower income

Accurate HAMP Eligibility 

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

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

payment terms

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

modification 

Property Valuation (AVM, BPO) 

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

Accuracy of Trial Period Plan 

(TPP) Notice Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent accurate TPP Notices to borrowers entering a Trial 

modification

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

NPV model use/re-coding 

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

Treasury NPV model

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

Accuracy of Permanent 

Modification Agreement Core Eligibility/Incentive

Permanent Modification Agreement includes correct terms including 

payment amount, interest rate, unpaid principal balance, and 

forbearance amount

Waiver of Late Charges & other 

Fees at conversion from TPP to 

Perm. Mod.

Core Eligibility/Incentive At time of conversion to permanent modification, servicer waived all late 

charges and other fees related to the delinquency of the original loan

Application of Unapplied Funds 

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

Trial Plan

Accurate 2MP Eligibility 

Assessment

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately evaluated borrower for second lien modification

Accurate calculation of 2MP 

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

Timely mailing and accuracy of 

2MP Non-Approval Notice, 

where applicable

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

modifications within specified time frame 

Accurate HAFA Eligibility 

Assessment

Second Look, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Servicer reviewed HAFA applications and makes appropriate eligibility 

decision 

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

short sale or deed-in-lieu

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

Solicitation of Financial 

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

notification with the TPP

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

Timely mailing of HAFA Short 

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

Homeowner Evaluation and Assistance

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

30
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 2: Compliance Criteria Tested This metric

Program Management and Reporting

Criteria Tested Review Type Objective

HAMP Incentive Compensation -

Servicer, Borrower & Investor Core Eligibility/Incentive Incentive compensation is accurate based on loan file documentation

Application of Borrower Incentives Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer accurately applied borrower incentives to unpaid principal 

balance within 30 days of receipt

Timely and accurate 120-Day 

Notice of Interest Rate Increase Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent accurate first notice of Interest Rate Increase between 120 

and 240 days prior to rate increase

Timely and accurate 60-Day Notice 

of Interest Rate Increase Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer sent accurate second notice of Interest Rate Increase between 60 and 75 days prior to rate increase

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

Appropriate timing on reporting of 

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

after letter sent)

Second Look Servicer reported HAMP denials to the Program Administrator in 

accordance with program guidelines

Accurate reporting of HAMP 

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

Administrator including all data used in calculating incentives

Appropriate notification to 

borrowers of Post-Modification 

Counseling 

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

financial counseling

2MP Incentive Compensation -

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

Accurate reporting of 2MP 

Trials/Perm Mods to IR2 Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer reported accurate modification data to Program Administrator 

with respect to second lien modifications

HAFA Incentive Compensation -

Servicer, Borrower & Investor Core Eligibility/Incentive Incentive compensation for HAFA transactions is accurate based on loan 

file documentation

Accuracy of reporting of HAFA 

activity to IR2 Core Eligibility/Incentive Servicer reported accurate modification data to Program Administrator 

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

Re-default and Loss of Good 

Standing

Directed Actions, Core 

Eligibility/Incentive

Modifications that are disqualified from HAMP due to Loss of Good 

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

manner

Pre-Foreclosure affirmation 

provided by Relationship Manager 

(SPOC)

Directed Actions SPOC provided affirmation that all available loss mitigation options had 

been exhausted

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

Certification provided to 

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

and all other loss mitigation options had been exhausted

Proper resolution of Escalated 

Cases Directed Actions Borrower complaints are resolved accurately

Timely processing of escalated 

cases

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

borrower is notified appropriately of delays

Validation of receipt and 

completeness of MHA Data for 

transferred loans by transferee 

servicer

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

loans contained all required MHA data

Timely processing of transferred 

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

appropriately placed into Official Modifications

Application of incentives for 

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

transferred loans where appropriate

31
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 3: Terms and Methodologies

Average Delinquency at Trial Start:

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

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

of the trial plan.

Back-End Debt-to-Income Ratio:

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

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

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

counseling under program guidelines.

Disqualification:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligible Loans:

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

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

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

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

that exclude them from HAMP. 

Front-End Debt-to-Income Ratio:

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

income. 

Monthly Housing Payment:

Principal and interest payment.

32
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Note # Section End Notes 

1 HAMP Program Results

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 Program Results

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

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

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

Excludes cancellations and disqualifications pending data corrections and loans otherwise removed 

from servicing portfolios.

3 HAMP Program Results

Servicers did not submit 1.9% of the total required OMRs for loans aged up to 60 months in the 

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

servicer data corrections. For example, if it was assumed that all unreported OMRs reflect either a 

current payment status or the maximum number of missed payments based on the most recently 

submitted OMR, the re-default rate for Tier 1 permanent modifications that have aged 60 months 

may range between 45.1% and 45.3%. 

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 2MP Modification Characteristics describe loan characteristics at time of modification. 

8 Other MHA Programs

Survey data indicates that program to date, 359,216 qualifying first lien modifications have been 

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

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

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

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

liens decline to participate in 2MP.

9 Results by 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. 

10 Results by Servicer Includes non-GSE activity under the MHA program only. Servicer GSE program data not available.

11 Results by Servicer

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

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

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

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

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

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

modifications are reported as Active Trials. These modifications may be 6 months or more beyond 

their first trial payment due date resulting in their classification as an Aged Trials. As a result, 

fluctuations are expected in this population.

Appendix 4: End Notes

33
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 5: HAMP Activity by State

State Trial Modifications Started Permanent Modifications Started Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

AK 1,275 733 $479.55 31%

AL 17,066 10,423 $262.82 32%

AR 6,702 3,951 $247.30 32%

AZ 92,559 55,297 $439.64 37%

CA 507,389 351,417 $708.16 37%

CO 31,917 20,477 $405.12 33%

CT 33,287 22,772 $523.16 37%

DC 4,300 2,777 $538.58 32%

DE 8,000 5,326 $403.41 32%

FL 296,109 192,545 $465.51 40%

GA 91,469 57,137 $356.58 36%

HI 8,717 5,869 $788.69 33%

IA 7,269 4,271 $251.29 33%

ID 8,832 5,523 $367.12 33%

IL 124,521 82,780 $498.98 40%

IN 26,731 16,793 $260.63 33%

KS 7,073 4,191 $284.48 33%

KY 11,008 6,873 $264.00 33%

LA 17,001 10,746 $281.28 33%

MA 54,758 37,645 $575.20 35%

MD 78,648 52,563 $561.11 34%

ME 7,001 4,820 $383.89 35%

MI 71,138 44,139 $341.71 37%

MN 37,114 23,217 $417.77 35%

MO 28,098 17,142 $291.82 35%

MS 10,544 6,654 $249.05 33%

MT 2,868 1,690 $391.39 32%

NC 49,856 31,165 $300.45 33%

ND 488 261 $275.76 31%

NE 3,924 2,436 $261.14 33%

NH 10,535 7,114 $464.79 34%

NJ 85,133 57,458 $623.19 37%

NM 8,675 5,481 $345.09 33%

NV 54,094 33,372 $523.44 38%

NY 123,218 84,295 $772.28 38%

OH 59,988 36,049 $291.26 36%

OK 7,756 4,499 $244.65 33%

OR 26,376 16,953 $451.38 34%

PA 60,677 39,671 $340.49 34%

RI 11,474 7,981 $532.55 39%

SC 26,104 16,119 $294.72 33%

SD 1,037 573 $258.45 29%

TN 29,677 18,880 $284.42 34%

TX 82,800 48,703 $281.47 33%

UT 19,272 12,510 $427.14 32%

VA 56,716 36,471 $479.67 32%

VT 2,106 1,505 $364.21 34%

WA 48,911 32,758 $500.22 33%

WI 24,479 15,933 $343.86 36%

WV 3,718 2,222 $302.43 30%

WY 1,227 756 $360.77 30%

PR 5,988 4,752 $284.16 37%

Nationwide* 2,395,672 1,565,723 $479.67 35%

* Includes U.S. Territories

34
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Median Values

State Before Mod 

DTI

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I

Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

After Mod UPB

After Mod 

Monthly 

P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after 

All Increases

Final Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

AK 45.11% 6.8% $1,470.00 $4,190.00 $213,634.56 $856.63 $93.31 $181.22 -$426.29

AL 46.47% 6.8% $874.97 $2,285.28 $120,350.66 $502.00 $48.20 $97.96 -$239.65

AR 45.56% 6.5% $799.52 $2,122.50 $114,542.82 $459.65 $48.21 $99.35 -$206.68

AZ 49.43% 6.4% $1,192.71 $2,807.49 $178,362.97 $655.41 $78.00 $188.28 -$309.58

CA 48.69% 6.1% $1,941.72 $4,679.00 $306,819.14 $1,062.79 $134.61 $307.77 -$477.96

CO 46.41% 6.4% $1,235.16 $3,189.87 $188,964.75 $734.61 $80.18 $177.91 -$298.38

CT 45.44% 6.5% $1,457.89 $4,343.50 $210,684.66 $783.50 $90.62 $197.90 -$409.03

DC 47.92% 6.4% $1,708.47 $4,117.59 $275,231.83 $967.44 $120.47 $264.50 -$388.88

DE 46.96% 6.5% $1,280.69 $3,102.04 $194,714.31 $749.79 $82.87 $170.51 -$307.74

FL 47.55% 6.5% $1,192.19 $3,278.69 $170,803.41 $615.44 $74.71 $167.84 -$349.87

GA 47.39% 6.5% $1,004.68 $2,642.04 $143,559.97 $557.61 $61.53 $137.14 -$280.25

HI 49.03% 6.3% $2,428.88 $5,387.76 $394,323.26 $1,369.41 $174.31 $375.57 -$519.75

IA 44.37% 6.6% $777.68 $2,287.75 $107,873.80 $430.85 $44.67 $93.31 -$208.38

ID 48.47% 6.5% $1,148.67 $2,733.16 $170,966.28 $655.55 $73.83 $164.08 -$287.45

IL 46.98% 6.5% $1,279.10 $3,710.72 $178,996.68 $644.30 $78.25 $176.89 -$391.97

IN 46.02% 6.8% $813.74 $2,156.08 $110,073.32 $453.31 $44.55 $94.09 -$224.24

KS 44.48% 6.6% $900.49 $2,727.72 $126,684.15 $500.08 $51.34 $111.40 -$242.52

KY 45.60% 6.8% $812.81 $2,208.00 $112,187.43 $458.93 $45.98 $96.98 -$219.70

LA 45.58% 6.9% $896.33 $2,552.15 $123,483.04 $495.27 $50.99 $101.18 -$254.75

MA 47.02% 6.4% $1,658.68 $4,336.45 $250,065.46 $913.60 $107.64 $237.87 -$426.57

MD 46.85% 6.4% $1,672.60 $4,333.09 $259,627.17 $939.35 $113.26 $250.82 -$410.69

ME 46.51% 6.6% $1,134.68 $3,000.01 $163,454.44 $616.23 $69.59 $142.60 -$300.55

MI 46.83% 6.5% $954.55 $2,670.00 $129,731.11 $506.39 $53.99 $122.86 -$276.47

MN 46.06% 6.3% $1,201.56 $3,302.26 $178,485.68 $679.05 $76.43 $175.00 -$307.44

MO 45.98% 6.6% $879.76 $2,484.15 $123,647.11 $484.54 $50.99 $108.62 -$249.57

MS 46.34% 6.9% $810.75 $2,227.41 $110,587.32 $450.66 $44.67 $87.56 -$238.13

MT 46.78% 6.4% $1,265.25 $3,249.50 $194,462.81 $734.41 $81.74 $172.06 -$308.48

NC 46.37% 6.5% $946.47 $2,501.46 $133,802.73 $541.24 $56.09 $116.68 -$251.39

ND 42.13% 6.5% $881.34 $2,677.81 $132,200.71 $510.05 $54.36 $112.00 -$198.13

NE 43.82% 6.7% $776.06 $2,466.00 $109,072.60 $442.44 $44.95 $91.26 -$216.03

NH 43.97% 6.4% $1,345.02 $4,164.65 $198,364.34 $765.05 $84.36 $180.31 -$346.35

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

35
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Median Values

State Before Mod 

DTI

Pre-Mod 

Interest 

Rate

Pre-Mod 

Monthly P&I

Monthly 

Income at 

Time of Mod

After Mod UPB

After Mod 

Monthly 

P&I

Monthly P&I 

Payment 

Increase at 

First Interest 

Rate Increase

Total Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Increase after 

All Increases

Final Monthly 

P&I Payment 

Reduction from 

Pre-Mod P&I

NJ 45.21% 6.4% $1,703.63 $5,239.51 $249,875.68 $888.78 $109.73 $237.20 -$470.32

NM 47.15% 6.5% $1,060.58 $2,747.17 $156,255.43 $615.70 $67.47 $143.81 -$280.71

NV 50.09% 6.3% $1,370.08 $3,128.87 $207,757.85 $740.15 $91.11 $215.53 -$363.16

NY 47.10% 6.4% $2,082.53 $5,702.05 $312,268.24 $1,085.73 $137.03 $295.59 -$579.34

OH 45.39% 6.6% $821.56 $2,400.00 $110,903.12 $448.07 $45.49 $99.28 -$233.57

OK 44.68% 6.9% $773.60 $2,355.77 $106,049.14 $438.84 $42.67 $85.85 -$223.04

OR 46.64% 6.4% $1,323.74 $3,455.00 $206,798.41 $770.89 $90.88 $197.93 -$321.60

PA 45.17% 6.6% $1,084.69 $3,199.20 $151,750.55 $589.82 $63.43 $129.64 -$296.37

RI 47.47% 6.4% $1,361.36 $3,653.75 $196,183.71 $707.79 $84.90 $190.64 -$400.68

SC 46.68% 6.6% $960.75 $2,492.98 $136,931.43 $547.37 $57.64 $120.79 -$251.77

SD 43.88% 6.4% $926.45 $2,749.00 $136,834.86 $529.84 $56.34 $123.39 -$206.89

TN 46.97% 6.9% $876.16 $2,300.17 $118,332.26 $483.23 $47.86 $100.01 -$257.99

TX 43.17% 7.0% $856.15 $2,946.08 $118,358.54 $485.66 $48.41 $98.74 -$247.78

UT 47.61% 6.5% $1,366.12 $3,276.17 $211,052.21 $804.24 $92.57 $208.31 -$319.94

VA 46.61% 6.4% $1,591.92 $4,055.94 $248,502.09 $907.17 $107.09 $237.37 -$355.89

VT 45.92% 6.8% $1,138.36 $3,120.47 $168,109.94 $629.74 $72.09 $153.62 -$303.79

WA 46.37% 6.4% $1,511.16 $3,971.40 $241,013.46 $875.67 $106.01 $228.48 -$350.09

WI 45.09% 6.5% $986.26 $2,991.26 $138,308.63 $535.19 $58.70 $125.58 -$275.18

WV 46.54% 6.6% $1,068.64 $2,652.11 $153,674.84 $620.75 $62.77 $125.75 -$258.87

WY 46.14% 6.5% $1,304.73 $3,220.99 $187,538.12 $791.25 $79.85 $162.93 -$300.16

PR 50.86% 6.4% $773.18 $1,650.10 $104,270.34 $443.43 $44.51 $95.93 -$214.76

Nationwide* 47.27% 6.4% $1,443.83 $3,800.00 $214,381.89 $781.39 $92.57 $205.95 -$369.33

* Includes U.S. Territories

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

36
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage

HAMP Tier 1

Mod. 

Effective 

in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18

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

2009Q3 3,571 10.7% 4.5% 4,398 15.8% 10.6% 4,604 25.8% 21.1% 4,937 32.2% 28.9%

2009Q4 43,422 5.7% 1.9% 47,244 10.2% 6.3% 51,151 20.4% 15.8% 54,329 25.4% 22.3%

2010Q1 123,632 4.2% 1.5% 149,846 10.4% 6.1% 160,656 20.3% 16.1% 165,660 26.0% 22.4%

2010Q2 147,231 5.3% 1.8% 156,833 12.2% 7.5% 173,109 19.5% 16.0% 170,299 27.7% 24.1%

2010Q3 86,031 5.1% 1.9% 95,696 11.1% 7.1% 103,968 18.2% 14.5% 105,943 25.3% 21.9%

2010Q4 57,918 4.6% 1.8% 62,387 8.9% 5.7% 65,015 18.4% 14.5% 66,563 23.9% 21.1%

2011Q1 70,695 2.9% 1.1% 75,704 8.2% 5.1% 79,407 17.0% 13.6% 80,990 22.2% 19.2%

2011Q2 79,715 3.7% 1.3% 88,970 9.3% 5.8% 92,452 16.2% 13.2% 91,725 23.1% 20.0%

2011Q3 80,712 3.7% 1.3% 85,775 8.8% 5.6% 86,753 15.6% 12.3% 86,498 21.8% 18.9%

2011Q4 64,800 3.4% 1.2% 67,311 6.9% 4.4% 67,644 14.7% 11.3% 67,799 19.3% 16.8%

2012Q1 49,232 2.5% 0.9% 50,675 6.8% 4.1% 50,704 14.1% 10.9% 50,089 18.5% 15.8%

2012Q2 43,866 3.0% 1.0% 44,844 7.7% 4.6% 45,124 13.6% 10.9% 44,640 18.9% 16.1%

2012Q3 47,180 3.1% 1.0% 48,860 7.3% 4.6% 49,595 13.0% 10.1% 50,123 17.9% 15.1%

2012Q4 39,206 3.2% 1.0% 41,120 6.3% 3.9% 42,340 12.3% 9.4% 42,605 16.3% 14.0%

2013Q1 39,168 2.2% 0.7% 40,826 6.0% 3.5% 41,950 12.6% 9.6% 42,319 16.6% 13.9%

2013Q2 31,476 2.6% 0.8% 32,952 6.5% 3.9% 33,656 11.8% 9.4% 33,936 16.5% 14.1%

2013Q3 31,874 2.9% 1.0% 33,348 7.0% 4.2% 34,741 12.1% 9.2% 34,550 16.5% 14.0%

2013Q4 27,258 2.9% 1.0% 28,576 6.3% 3.8% 29,861 12.3% 9.5% 29,850 16.1% 13.9%

2014Q1 23,637 2.5% 0.9% 25,526 6.8% 3.9% 26,380 13.1% 10.3% 26,296 16.5% 14.3%

2014Q2 19,000 3.7% 1.2% 19,813 7.8% 5.1% 20,439 13.1% 10.7% 20,370 17.8% 15.1%

2014Q3 16,967 3.6% 1.3% 17,809 8.0% 5.4% 18,371 13.4% 10.6% 6,159 17.2% 14.8%

2014Q4 15,132 3.9% 1.5% 16,899 7.1% 4.4% 17,299 13.9% 10.6%

2015Q1 14,841 2.9% 1.0% 15,793 7.2% 4.3% 5,619 14.3% 10.9%

2015Q2 14,279 3.9% 1.4% 14,804 9.0% 5.5%

2015Q3 12,616 3.8% 1.3% 4,225 9.2% 5.9%

2015Q4 3,752 4.0% 1.4%

All 1,187,211 3.9% 1.3% 1,270,234 9.0% 5.5% 1,300,838 16.5% 13.1% 1,275,680 22.4% 19.3%

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. 

37
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage

HAMP Tier 1

Mod. 

Effective 

in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

24 36 48 60

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

2009Q3 5,040 36.9% 33.6% 5,140 43.9% 41.8% 5,046 50.1% 48.4% 5,029 54.0% 52.5%

2009Q4 55,273 31.6% 28.4% 56,089 39.7% 37.2% 55,850 44.9% 43.1% 55,105 48.9% 47.5%

2010Q1 167,456 31.8% 28.7% 165,743 39.7% 37.4% 165,516 44.5% 42.9% 163,045 48.4% 47.1%

2010Q2 178,424 31.0% 28.7% 174,673 39.2% 37.4% 173,971 43.7% 42.5% 172,724 47.1% 46.1%

2010Q3 105,998 29.4% 26.8% 104,280 37.1% 35.2% 104,883 41.2% 39.8% 102,590 45.0% 43.9%

2010Q4 66,326 29.5% 26.5% 65,837 36.3% 34.2% 65,854 40.4% 38.8% 64,765 43.7% 42.5%

2011Q1 80,640 27.5% 24.8% 80,772 33.8% 31.8% 80,300 37.9% 36.5% 27,325 41.9% 40.9%

2011Q2 91,306 27.3% 25.0% 91,356 33.1% 31.6% 90,841 37.1% 36.0%

2011Q3 84,981 25.8% 23.4% 86,716 31.0% 29.2% 84,842 35.4% 34.2%

2011Q4 67,518 23.3% 21.0% 67,611 28.5% 26.8% 66,508 32.3% 30.9%

2012Q1 50,596 22.5% 20.0% 50,125 27.9% 26.0% 16,558 31.6% 30.3%

2012Q2 44,844 22.1% 20.0% 44,760 27.0% 25.5%

2012Q3 50,383 20.9% 18.5% 49,643 25.5% 24.0%

2012Q4 42,732 19.9% 17.6% 42,101 24.2% 22.6%

2013Q1 42,101 19.9% 17.7% 13,066 24.0% 22.2%

2013Q2 34,073 19.1% 17.3%

2013Q3 34,673 18.7% 16.8%

2013Q4 29,823 19.1% 17.0%

2014Q1 8,545 19.2% 16.9%

2014Q2

2014Q3

2014Q4

2015Q1

2015Q2

2015Q3

2015Q4

All 1,240,732 26.8% 24.3% 1,097,912 34.4% 32.5% 910,169 40.4% 39.0% 590,583 46.7% 45.6%

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

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

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

38
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 7: Performance of HAMP Modifications by Vintage

HAMP Tier 2

Mod. 

Effective 

in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

3 6 12 18

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

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

2012Q4 946 5.3% 1.3% 1,114 9.7% 5.3% 1,186 23.4% 17.2% 1,245 28.0% 23.1%

2013Q1 2,481 4.3% 1.4% 2,715 12.4% 7.1% 2,876 24.8% 19.4% 2,978 31.0% 26.7%

2013Q2 4,102 5.3% 1.5% 4,454 13.8% 7.9% 5,052 21.8% 17.4% 5,156 29.2% 24.6%

2013Q3 11,191 5.9% 2.0% 13,203 13.8% 8.2% 13,624 22.3% 16.7% 13,526 29.0% 24.8%

2013Q4 11,220 5.9% 2.0% 11,788 11.8% 7.3% 12,601 22.2% 17.0% 12,511 26.8% 23.4%

2014Q1 10,514 4.1% 1.4% 11,618 12.2% 6.7% 12,045 21.7% 17.1% 11,831 26.8% 23.0%

2014Q2 10,896 5.5% 1.5% 11,203 13.0% 7.3% 11,322 19.9% 15.8% 11,231 26.5% 22.2%

2014Q3 9,204 5.8% 2.0% 9,528 12.8% 8.0% 9,993 20.0% 15.3% 3,532 27.0% 22.2%

2014Q4 11,113 5.8% 1.9% 12,743 11.2% 6.4% 12,955 21.3% 16.1%

2015Q1 13,134 4.5% 1.2% 14,126 12.0% 6.5% 5,165 21.5% 15.9%

2015Q2 13,983 6.0% 1.6% 14,273 14.0% 8.4%

2015Q3 14,363 6.8% 2.1% 4,813 15.5% 9.1%

2015Q4 4,174 6.2% 2.0%

All 117,321 5.6% 1.7% 111,578 12.8% 7.4% 86,819 21.5% 16.5% 62,011 27.6% 23.6%

Mod. 

Effective 

in: 

Delinquency: Months After Conversion to Permanent Modification 

24 36 48 60

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

2012Q3 1 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0%

2012Q4 1,258 33.3% 28.5% 1,283 38.8% 34.3%

2013Q1 3,013 35.8% 32.2% 828 40.0% 38.2%

2013Q2 5,194 32.3% 29.1%

2013Q3 13,833 32.0% 28.6%

2013Q4 12,643 31.4% 27.9%

2014Q1 3,925 31.5% 27.8%

2014Q2

2014Q3

2014Q4

2015Q1

2015Q2

2015Q3

2015Q4

All 39,867 32.1% 28.7% 2,112 39.3% 35.8%

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

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

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

39
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 77 $196.03 33%

Aguadilla-Isabela, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 204 $247.31 35%

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,771 $301.00 37%

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 356 $240.59 31%

Albany, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 250 $339.20 33%

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,928 $356.78 34%

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,580 $334.07 33%

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 189 $243.02 31%

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,526 $398.31 34%

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 159 $220.94 32%

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $257.88 36%

Ames, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 67 $279.62 32%

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 566 $506.52 33%

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,245 $420.22 36%

Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 196 $219.60 31%

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 384 $305.52 34%

Arecibo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 160 $261.16 36%

Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,392 $350.45 33%

Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 587 $306.87 34%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 45,237 $375.20 37%

Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,623 $491.69 38%

Auburn-Opelika, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 286 $282.66 29%

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,104 $263.21 34%

Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,976 $328.55 33%

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8,425 $472.44 37%

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 17,660 $469.48 32%

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 397 $305.68 34%

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,909 $612.26 36%

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,563 $263.18 31%

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 455 $267.80 38%

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 292 $236.50 36%

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 373 $220.00 34%

Beckley, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 71 $217.17 35%

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 647 $477.30 34%

Bend-Redmond, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,286 $526.06 37%

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 162 $286.95 28%

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 303 $241.03 35%

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,880 $281.30 33%

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area 55 $342.59 34%

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 188 $299.30 30%

Bloomington, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 235 $295.39 35%

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 236 $257.42 30%

Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 57 $264.88 40%

Boise City, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,091 $382.38 34%

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,205 $621.70 36%

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 676 $482.84 34%

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 186 $243.47 34%

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,031 $469.19 31%

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,055 $700.98 40%

40
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 616 $231.77 35%

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 278 $329.82 34%

Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,752 $260.47 35%

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 452 $260.60 32%

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area 455 $416.69 35%

California-Lexington Park, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 377 $548.21 32%

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,365 $264.46 35%

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,316 $471.71 40%

Cape Girardeau, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 117 $227.73 31%

Carbondale-Marion, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 65 $264.77 44%

Carson City, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 417 $520.56 37%

Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 136 $350.03 30%

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 368 $258.96 33%

Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 280 $356.53 33%

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 225 $243.19 31%

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 176 $220.35 33%

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,288 $350.92 33%

Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,504 $312.44 33%

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 660 $386.38 31%

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,507 $276.64 34%

Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area 152 $272.95 27%

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 79,778 $510.93 41%

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,184 $459.38 34%

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,561 $309.63 35%

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 279 $222.24 31%

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 245 $260.75 33%

Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,161 $309.04 38%

Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 680 $414.03 33%

College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 140 $224.78 28%

Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,151 $391.71 33%

Columbia, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 179 $243.17 32%

Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,780 $268.04 33%

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 807 $273.75 34%

Columbus, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 135 $216.55 31%

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,845 $320.56 36%

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 431 $241.80 32%

Corvallis, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 114 $362.93 27%

Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 904 $422.33 36%

Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 157 $246.68 32%

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 16,387 $296.46 33%

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 505 $264.46 35%

Danville, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 64 $204.23 39%

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 53 $172.03 23%

Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 407 $351.01 35%

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 603 $243.87 36%

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,239 $266.10 36%

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 203 $228.18 29%

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 104 $206.32 35%

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,386 $387.92 38%

41
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 12,522 $405.82 33%

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,532 $273.58 32%

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 26,005 $376.19 39%

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 201 $217.68 30%

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 975 $391.38 30%

Dubuque, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 112 $253.24 35%

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 722 $283.99 33%

Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,460 $322.44 34%

East Stroudsburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,372 $479.93 41%

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 253 $288.36 33%

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,572 $436.87 35%

Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 151 $238.72 30%

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 638 $259.41 34%

Elmira, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 126 $263.36 40%

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,443 $249.76 34%

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 418 $244.05 39%

Eugene, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,244 $387.82 33%

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 470 $212.91 31%

Fairbanks, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area 67 $381.06 26%

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 189 $275.83 30%

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 130 $299.96 27%

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 719 $237.57 34%

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,249 $292.53 34%

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 338 $526.70 34%

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,878 $325.28 37%

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 556 $228.13 32%

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 159 $213.49 34%

Fond du Lac, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 182 $295.97 34%

Fort Collins, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 892 $405.73 31%

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 259 $207.82 30%

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 937 $241.07 35%

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,101 $477.60 37%

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 190 $233.42 32%

Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 750 $334.68 36%

Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,163 $331.01 36%

Gettysburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 275 $439.35 37%

Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 387 $330.37 37%

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 186 $248.67 35%

Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 65 $228.97 30%

Grand Island, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 37 $241.89 35%

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 590 $412.05 32%

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,346 $285.52 34%

Grants Pass, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 350 $532.32 40%

Great Falls, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 83 $257.52 29%

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,145 $357.62 30%

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 619 $348.26 38%

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,721 $286.53 34%

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 386 $272.33 34%

Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,544 $262.27 32%

Guayama, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 45 $171.27 33%

42
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area Permanent 

Modifications Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 953 $265.66 34%

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,702 $427.87 33%

Hammond, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 242 $292.01 35%

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 957 $423.18 34%

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,222 $307.04 32%

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 258 $407.98 35%

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,067 $452.04 36%

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 250 $236.68 32%

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,114 $246.42 32%

Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 632 $519.53 41%

Hinesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 131 $252.85 32%

Homosassa Springs, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 461 $358.27 42%

Hot Springs, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $313.44 38%

Houma-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 293 $248.53 32%

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 17,461 $284.63 34%

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 339 $234.88 35%

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 693 $239.49 30%

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 311 $262.63 26%

Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,971 $272.43 32%

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 109 $313.84 31%

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 57 $343.54 34%

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 657 $289.30 36%

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,859 $250.02 32%

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 328 $234.00 34%

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 10,630 $370.13 35%

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 184 $270.98 30%

Janesville-Beloit, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 604 $263.52 34%

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 159 $205.58 29%

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 276 $243.60 32%

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 115 $233.63 34%

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 90 $241.86 34%

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 248 $204.82 32%

Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 952 $1,048.08 39%

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 911 $305.70 37%

Kankakee, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 457 $345.20 37%

Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,180 $311.33 35%

Kennewick-Richland, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 395 $272.32 31%

Killeen-Temple, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 302 $219.31 30%

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 382 $244.15 34%

Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,047 $495.64 38%

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,898 $261.18 31%

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 238 $226.60 33%

La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 151 $263.54 29%

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 636 $242.70 31%

Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 264 $263.60 34%

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 289 $227.90 32%

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,311 $408.40 36%

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,688 $367.60 37%

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,161 $306.28 31%

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,613 $313.97 36%

43
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 562 $290.89 37%

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 376 $323.92 31%

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 27,348 $525.86 38%

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 169 $323.35 32%

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 103 $215.80 32%

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 281 $292.41 30%

Lewiston, ID-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 99 $249.62 24%

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 345 $332.18 34%

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 866 $297.53 35%

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 223 $244.48 39%

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area 387 $265.02 32%

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,256 $244.58 32%

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 219 $309.38 28%

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 157 $232.60 33%

Longview, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 432 $380.38 33%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 111,155 $805.10 38%

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,430 $266.99 33%

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 188 $219.19 31%

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 498 $255.40 29%

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 933 $274.32 36%

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,731 $507.44 38%

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,248 $392.60 34%

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,240 $476.44 34%

Manhattan, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 64 $330.37 32%

Mankato-North Mankato, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 163 $303.73 30%

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 331 $238.37 34%

Mayaguez, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 85 $209.29 35%

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,308 $250.35 34%

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,280 $458.41 35%

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,854 $295.73 36%

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,525 $529.02 38%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 81,984 $538.45 42%

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 374 $248.02 33%

Midland, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 107 $296.96 41%

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 73 $249.77 30%

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,198 $356.53 37%

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 19,049 $449.21 36%

Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 260 $412.98 31%

Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,302 $258.94 36%

Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,836 $562.10 37%

Monroe, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 234 $214.80 28%

Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 765 $354.01 35%

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 897 $236.71 30%

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 52 $379.46 38%

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 277 $258.04 32%

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 509 $517.72 37%

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 198 $211.21 34%

Muskegon, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 637 $247.88 37%

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,847 $378.98 36%

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,168 $824.47 35%

44
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,520 $607.95 42%

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,388 $312.05 33%

New Bern, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 132 $296.15 39%

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,975 $474.96 36%

New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,587 $330.10 35%

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 115,894 $792.98 39%

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 503 $270.80 34%

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,512 $469.35 39%

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,515 $476.47 37%

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,606 $356.52 37%

Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 624 $472.66 33%

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 65 $206.27 31%

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,874 $354.71 28%

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,978 $256.27 33%

Olympia-Tumwater, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,100 $433.43 32%

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,860 $273.31 34%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 27,739 $453.88 38%

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 289 $278.55 35%

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area 134 $189.20 32%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,774 $832.08 36%

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,738 $397.96 38%

Panama City, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 665 $387.33 37%

Parkersburg-Vienna, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 107 $185.44 30%

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,777 $305.94 34%

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 492 $225.89 34%

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 30,108 $395.53 33%

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 43,456 $458.19 37%

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 92 $222.77 35%

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,678 $266.25 35%

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 256 $330.31 33%

Pocatello, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area 178 $255.23 31%

Ponce, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 200 $242.82 38%

Portland-South Portland, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,633 $443.93 35%

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,706 $477.43 34%

Port St. Lucie, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,375 $455.54 39%

Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,363 $443.28 36%

Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,513 $532.16 38%

Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,613 $457.09 32%

Pueblo, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 649 $267.03 35%

Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,292 $441.73 41%

Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 773 $354.54 36%

Raleigh, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,701 $340.76 32%

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 156 $320.99 34%

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,474 $337.41 33%

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,182 $447.91 34%

Reno, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,075 $526.84 36%

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,074 $365.24 32%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 69,048 $633.64 37%

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 801 $275.45 32%

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 427 $324.73 33%

45
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly Payment 

Reduction % of PreModification Payment

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,806 $263.35 36%

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,485 $322.70 38%

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 416 $252.55 36%

Rome, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 190 $237.20 31%

Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 23,306 $608.87 36%

Saginaw, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 478 $262.13 36%

St. Cloud, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area 512 $326.80 32%

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,072 $532.28 37%

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 201 $248.07 37%

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 11,564 $301.09 35%

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,725 $384.61 34%

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,540 $869.12 40%

Salisbury, MD-DE Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,514 $417.60 35%

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,902 $422.13 33%

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 54 $197.37 29%

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,621 $252.89 32%

San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 24,871 $758.00 36%

Sandusky, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 70 $217.68 27%

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 30,245 $865.99 37%

San German, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 90 $243.70 36%

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,712 $954.68 37%

San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,885 $296.11 37%

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,591 $767.47 36%

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,565 $973.26 38%

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area 646 $516.34 35%

Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,727 $732.40 38%

Santa Rosa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,164 $806.00 37%

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,382 $321.93 34%

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,523 $284.21 36%

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 21,053 $556.66 34%

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,168 $401.33 38%

Sebring, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 351 $401.61 43%

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 229 $283.23 32%

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 178 $228.96 31%

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area 864 $243.70 32%

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 207 $326.78 36%

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 202 $239.18 35%

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area 250 $227.36 26%

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,053 $251.00 35%

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 931 $245.96 32%

Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,669 $326.91 32%

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 215 $240.90 36%

Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,891 $362.73 34%

Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area 788 $260.80 33%

Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 365 $262.63 38%

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 157 $358.66 34%

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area 185 $379.25 36%

Stockton-Lodi, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,666 $646.32 37%

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 227 $224.42 34%

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 846 $254.88 35%

46
Making Home Affordable: Appendix 

Program Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Appendix 8: HAMP Activity by MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Permanent 

Modifications 

Started 

Median Monthly 

Payment 

Reduction 

Median Monthly 

Payment Reduction % of 

Pre-Modification 

Payment

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,372 $329.19 32%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 23,523 $404.70 38%

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 198 $217.20 38%

Texarkana, TX-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area 106 $197.41 30%

The Villages, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 164 $398.22 40%

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,274 $261.59 36%

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 310 $221.20 29%

Trenton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,799 $486.34 37%

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,253 $364.83 35%

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,578 $248.38 33%

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 380 $286.94 32%

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 242 $303.87 35%

Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,924 $766.83 32%

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 394 $250.12 35%

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 212 $278.23 32%

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,601 $721.82 36%

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 47 $241.44 35%

Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area 798 $358.14 35%

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,495 $393.09 32%

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,974 $423.40 36%

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 206 $215.47 33%

Walla Walla, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 85 $353.38 35%

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 348 $276.77 34%

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 50,835 $638.01 35%

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area 227 $211.45 33%

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area 50 $239.06 30%

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 202 $295.29 36%

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 155 $218.63 35%

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 313 $373.26 30%

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 128 $186.72 33%

Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area 867 $242.52 35%

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 73 $158.96 28%

Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 174 $204.33 31%

Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,166 $380.10 34%

Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 841 $455.61 32%

Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,907 $275.47 33%

Worcester, MA-CT Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,825 $502.66 37%

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 442 $278.42 32%

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,805 $367.42 32%

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,410 $255.88 37%

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,473 $499.94 36%

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 1,236 $339.29 35%

47