oversight

Member First Mortgage, LLC, Grand Rapids, MI, Generally Implemented Its Loss Mitigation and Quality Control Programs in Accordance With HUD's Requirements

Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2015-09-10.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

          Member First Mortgage, LLC,
              Grand Rapids, MI
      HUD’s Loss Mitigation Program for FHA-Insured
                          Loans




Office of Audit, Region 5     Audit Report Number: 2015-CH-1005
Chicago, IL                                   September 10, 2015
To:            Kathleen Zadareky, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing, HU

               //signed//
From:          Kelly Anderson, Regional Inspector General for Audit, Chicago Region, 5AGA

Subject:       Member First Mortgage, LLC, Grand Rapids, MI, Generally Implemented Its
               Loss Mitigation and Quality Control Programs in Accordance With HUD’s
               Requirements


Attached is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector
General’s (OIG) results of our review of Member First Mortgage’s Loss Mitigation and quality
control programs for Federal Housing Administration-insured loans.
HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on
recommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision,
please respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish
us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.
The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8M, requires that OIG post its
publicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at
http://www.hudoig.gov.
If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me at
312-353-7832.
                          Audit Report Number: 2015-CH-1005
                          Date: September 10, 2015

                          Member First Mortgage, LLC, Grand Rapids, MI, Generally Implemented
                          Its Loss Mitigation and Quality Control Programs in Accordance With
                          HUD’s Requirements



Highlights

What We Audited and Why
We audited Member First Mortgage, Limited Liability Company, a Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) nonsupervised servicer as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015
annual audit plan. We selected Member First based upon our analysis of risk factors for single-
family servicing lenders in Region 5’s jurisdiction.1 Our audit objectives were to determine
whether (1) Member First complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD) loss mitigation requirements for servicing FHA-insured loans and (2)
Member First’s quality control plan, as implemented, met HUD’s requirements.

What We Found
Member First generally complied with HUD’s requirements for loss mitigation and the quality
control program with the exception of the frequency of its quality control reviews of
nonperforming FHA-insured loans. Specifically, for the 15 FHA loans reviewed, it maintained
adequate documentation of its attempts to contact borrowers to mitigate loan delinquencies. It
also appropriately determined borrowers’ (1) eligibility for loss mitigation and (2) loss mitigation
options. However, Member First did not perform or ensure that its contractor performed
monthly quality control servicing reviews of its nonperforming loans. As a result of this
weakness, HUD and Member First lacked assurance that potential servicing deficiencies were
identified and mitigated in a timely manner, potentially resulting in an increased risk to FHA’s
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.

What We Recommend
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing require Member
First to implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that Member First and its
contractor perform quality control servicing reviews of FHA-insured loans in accordance with
HUD’s requirements.




1
    The region contains six States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Table of Contents
Background and Objectives ....................................................................................3

Results of Audit ........................................................................................................4
         Finding: Member First Generally Implemented Its Loss Mitigation and Quality
         Control Programs in Accordance With HUD’s Requirements .................................... 4

Scope and Methodology ...........................................................................................6

Internal Controls ......................................................................................................8




                                                            2
Background and Objectives
Member First Mortgage, Limited Liability Company, a nonsupervised lender,2 received approval
as a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lender on January 11, 1995. On April 21, 2008,
Member First became an unconditional direct endorsement lender, which also originates and
services government, conventional, and credit union portfolio loan products.
The National Housing Act, as amended, established FHA, an organizational unit within the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). FHA provides insurance to private
lenders against loss on mortgages financing homes. The basic home mortgage insurance
program is authorized under Title II, section 203(b), of the National Housing Act and governed
by regulations in 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 203.

HUD established the Loss Mitigation program in 1996 to ensure that distressed FHA-insured
borrowers would have opportunities to keep their homes and reduce losses to FHA’s insurance
fund. Loan servicers must offer loss mitigation options to borrowers in distress based on the
borrower’s financial circumstances and the status of the loan. The program consists of
reinstatement options to promote retention of borrowers’ homes and disposition options, which
assist borrowers in disposing of their homes.

The reinstatement options are special forbearance, partial claim, loan modification, and the
Home Affordable Modification Program. A special forbearance is a written repayment
agreement between a loan servicer and borrower, containing a plan to reinstate a delinquent loan.
A partial claim consists of an interest-free loan to the borrower in the amount needed to reinstate
the mortgage, thereby becoming a subordinate mortgage payable to HUD. FHA’s Home
Affordable Modification Program loss mitigation option, which became effective August 15,
2009, combines the loan modification and partial claim loss mitigation options.

The disposition options are preforeclosure sale and deed in lieu of foreclosure. The
preforeclosure sale option allows the defaulted borrower to sell his or her home and use the sales
proceeds to satisfy the mortgage debt even if the proceeds are less than the amount owed. A
deed in lieu of foreclosure allows a borrower to hand over his or her home to HUD in exchange
for a release from all mortgage obligations.
Our objectives were to determine whether (1) Member First complied with HUD’s loss
mitigation requirements for servicing FHA-insured loans and (2) Member First’s quality control
plan, as implemented, met HUD’s requirements.




2
  A nonsupervised lender is an FHA-approved lending institution, the principal activity of which involves lending or
investing funds in real estate mortgages.



                                                          3
Results of Audit

Finding: Member First Generally Implemented Its Loss Mitigation
and Quality Control Programs in Accordance With HUD’s
Requirements
Member First generally complied with HUD’s requirements for loss mitigation and the quality
control program with the exception of the frequency of its quality control reviews of
nonperforming FHA-insured loans. Specifically, for the 15 FHA loans reviewed, it maintained
adequate documentation of its attempts to contact borrowers to mitigate loan delinquencies. It
also appropriately determined borrowers’ (1) eligibility for loss mitigation and (2) loss mitigation
options. However, Member First did not perform or ensure that its contractor performed
monthly quality control servicing reviews of its nonperforming loans. As a result of this
weakness, HUD and Member First lacked assurance that potential servicing deficiencies were
identified and mitigated in a timely manner, potentially resulting in an increased risk to FHA’s
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
Member First Generally Implemented Its Loss Mitigation Program
We reviewed 15 loans to determine whether Member First complied with HUD’s requirements
for loss mitigation. For all 15 loans reviewed, when applicable, Member First generally

         Maintained documentation to support its (1) attempts to contact the borrowers before it
          initated the first legal action to foreclose and (2) determination of borrowers’ eligibility
          for loss mitgation,
         Evaluated borrowers’ financial situation to determine the most viable loss mitigation
          options that would generate the smallest financial loss to the FHA insurance fund, and
         Initiated the selected loss mitigation option or foreclosure process in a timely manner.

Member First Did Not Perform Monthly Quality Control Reviews
Member First did not perform or ensure that its contractor performed monthly quality control
servicing reviews of the loans (1) for borrowers who were delinquent in their mortgage
payments, (2) that resulted in an insurance claim, or (3) for properties that were in the
foreclosure process or had been foreclosed upon. Instead, its contractor performed quarterly
quality control reviews. According to HUD’s requirements,3 due to the importance of these
aspects of servicing, lenders must perform monthly reviews of delinquent loans, claims, and
foreclosures.




3
    HUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-10(B)



                                                     4
Member First Lacked Adequate Oversight of Its Contractor
The weakness described above occurred because Member First relied on its contractor to
perform its quality control servicing reviews. However, Member First did not monitor its
contractor to ensure that it complied with HUD’s requirements. HUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-
2, paragraph 7-3(B)(2), states that lenders contracting out any part of their quality control
function are responsible for ensuring that the outside source meets HUD’s requirements. This
requirement for monthly quality control reviews was also included in the contractor’s written
agreement with Member First.

In May 2014, Member First began performing monthly quality control servicing reviews of its
servicing loan portfolio. However, these reviews were separate from the quality control reviews
required by HUD. According to Member First, its review was more of an internal risk
assessment. As a result of our audit, Member First contacted its quality control contractor to
discuss performing quality control reviews of delinquent loans monthly. Member First’s vice
president of compliance said that he expected these monthly reviews to be implemented during
the second quarter of 2015. As of July 16, 2015, Member First’s compliance manager stated that
its quality control contractor had begun performing the quality control review for June 2015.

Conclusion
Member First lacked adequate oversight of its quality control contractor to ensure that loans (1)
for borrowers who were delinquent in their mortgage payments, (2) that resulted in an insurance
claim, or (3) for properties that were in the foreclosure process or had been foreclosed upon were
reviewed monthly in accordance with HUD’s requirements. As a result, HUD and Member First
lacked assurance that potential servicing deficiencies were identified and mitigated in a timely
manner, potentially resulting in an increased risk to FHA’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing require Member
First to
       1A.     Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that Member First and its
               contractor performs quality control servicing reviews of FHA-insured loans in
               accordance with HUD’s requirements.




                                                5
Scope and Methodology
We performed our audit work from December 2014 through April 2015 at Member First’s office
in Grand Rapids, MI, and our offices located in Chicago, IL, Detroit, MI, and Columbus, OH.
The audit covered the period December 1, 2012, through November 1, 2014, and was adjusted as
necessary.
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed applicable HUD handbooks, regulations, mortgagee
letters, and other reports and policies related to HUD’s Loss Mitigation program. Further, we
reviewed Member First’s servicing policies and procedures, quality control plan, and quality
control documentation. We also reviewed Member First’s electronic or hardcopy loan servicing
files. We interviewed Member First’s employees and HUD’s National Servicing Center’s staff.

We also selected the following samples to test the implementation of Member First’s loss
mitigation program.

Loss Mitigation Review
Using data maintained in HUD’s Single Family Data Warehouse system,4 we determined that
Member First had serviced 1,408 loans as of November 15, 2014. Of the 1,408 loans, we
excluded 201 that were no longer FHA insured. Of the remaining 1,207 loans (1,408 - 201), 18
were identified as loans for which HUD paid a conveyance claim during our audit period. In
addition, HUD’s Quality Assurance Division reviewed 3 of the 18 loans, reducing our universe
to 15. We randomly selected 5 of the 15 loans to review.

Further, using data maintained in HUD’s system, we also identified 264 loans, the borrowers of
which were delinquent with their mortgage payments from December 1, 2012, through
November 1, 2014. Of the 264 loans, the borrowers of 21 loans were 90 days or more delinquent
with their mortgage payments. HUD paid loss mitigation incentive claims on 1 of the 21 loans;
thus, we excluded that loan since it was part of the loss mitigation universe (above). Therefore,
we randomly selected 5 of the 20 (21-1) loans to review.

In addition using data maintained in HUD’s system, as of January 3, 2015, we had identified 14
loans for which HUD paid a loss mitigation incentive claim5 from December 1, 2012, through
November 1, 2014. We randomly selected 5 of the 14 loans to review. In combining our
sampling results, we reviewed a total of 15 loans (5+5+5) to determine whether Member First
complied with HUD’s requirements for loss mitigation.



4
  HUD’s Single Family Data Warehouse is a collection of database tables structured to provide HUD users easy and
efficient access to single-family housing case-level data on properties and associated loans, insurance, claims,
defaults, and demographics.
5
  Fees lenders received based on the loss mitigation option used to cure the default.



                                                        6
The conclusion in this audit report is limited to the 15 loans reviewed. We did not include
Member First’s compliance with HUD’s loss mitigation requirements for its entire servicing loan
portfolio.
Quality Control Review
We reviewed Member First’s contractors’ quality control review reports for its second and third
quarters of 2014. We reviewed the results of the reviews to determine whether Member First
complied with HUD regulations for performing quality control servicing reviews.
We relied on information maintained in HUD’s Neighborhood Watch6 and Single Family Data
Warehouse systems for information and sampling purposes only. We also relied on data
maintained in Member First’s servicing system, such as electronic loan files. Although we did
not perform a detailed assessment of the reliability of the data, we performed a minimal level of
testing and found the data to be adequately reliable for our purposes. The testing consisted of
comparing data in the electronic files to information from HUD’s systems. The audit results
were based on our review of electronic and supporting hardcopy documentation maintained by
Member First.
We provided the results of our review to Member First and HUD’s staff during the audit. We
asked Member First’s vice president of compliance to provide written comments on our
discussion draft audit report by July 27, 2015. Member First’s vice president of compliance
opted to not comment on the draft report.
We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objective(s). We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.




6
 Neighborhood Watch refers to a Web-based software application that displays loan performance data for lenders
and appraisers using FHA-insured single-family loan information. The system is designed to highlight exceptions
so that potential problems are readily identifiable.



                                                        7
Internal Controls
Internal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,
designed to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization’s mission,
goals, and objectives with regard to

   Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,
   Reliability of financial reporting, and
   Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Internal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the
organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and
procedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the
systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.

Relevant Internal Controls
We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit objectives:

   Effectiveness and efficiency of operations – Policies and procedures that management has
    implemented to reasonably ensure that a program meets its objectives.
   Reliability of financial reporting – Policies and procedures that management has
    implemented to reasonably ensure that valid and reliable data are obtained, maintained, and
    fairly disclosed in reports.
   Compliance with applicable laws and regulations – Policies and procedures that management
    has implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is consistent with laws and
    regulations.
We assessed the relevant controls identified above.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, the
reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1) impairments to effectiveness or
efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in financial or performance information, or (3)
violations of laws and regulations on a timely basis.
We evaluated internal controls related to the audit objectives in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Our evaluation of internal controls was not designed to
provide assurance regarding the effectiveness of the internal control structure as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of Member First’s internal
controls.




                                                  8