Talk:Home Affordable Modification Program

Uninformative, biased
It seems that this article was copy pasted from the government website (which will, regardless of the administration, be biased) Take this for example. It states much otherwise. So can someone with more knowledge of both sides of the issue please correct this article? Runningninja (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The summary is correct The efficacy of the program is for historians. But the rules of the program are not in doubt and this article is correct in that regard.

April 14 2010 new guidelines were announced: http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg566.htm

Her support is very biased. Her numbers are not.

Eli Is Calling (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many news reports about how this program is poorly administered and not achieving its goals. This article completely misses the reality that the program is touted, but failing. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

THe independent regulator called it "clearly a failure" with citation. If going to ignore the actual regulator why not just post the earth is flat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

NPV Calculation
It is not evident from the main article that the NPV calculation in the application process is done from the perspective of the bank, not the homeowner. Thus, from my understanding if it's likely that a foreclosure will have a lower NPV for the bank the loan is modified, if the NPV is higher by keeping the loan (even if the homeowner can't necessarily pay) and risking foreclosure the loan is not modified. It's a bailout program for banks, not necessarily homeowners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.64.37.142 (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The NPV is from the bank's perspective. It is clear from external materials that the NPV test compares NPV(Current Home Sales Price minus Foreclosure and Sales Costs) to NPV(Modified Loan). It is assumed that the borrower would not be able to pay the unmodified loan.

Proposed Additions
This is my first attempt to edit a wekipedia article. Therefore, I look forward to receiving feedback. Thanks.

Purpose
HAMP is authorized by sections 101 and 109 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which has been amended by 7002 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (collectively “The Acts”). Congress has several enumerated purposes under the Acts. The main purpose is to provide the U.S. Treasurer Department with the authority and mechanisms necessary to restore stability to the United State’s financial system—which includes—(1) protecting home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings, (2) preserving homeownership, (3) promoting jobs and economic growth, and (4) protecting the interests of taxpayers.

As a result of the authority it received under the Acts, the U.S. Treasury Department developed HAMP. Under HAMP, mortgage servicers (those who are commonly referred to as the mortgage lenders) are provided with the opportunity to enter into contracts with the Federal Government (the U.S. Treasury) to modify homeowners’ mortgage loans in a particular and uniform fashion and receive incentive payments in return.

In an attempt to require mortgage servicers to modify mortgages in a particular and uniform fashion, the U.S. Treasury has taken several actions. First, the U.S. Treasury Department not only describes HAMP and its related programs on its own publicly-accessed website (www.hmpadmin.com), but it also provides a step by step guide on how mortgage servicers are supposed to be performing the HAMP modifications. For example, in the HAMP Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages, the U.S. Treasury requires these servicers to actively solicit borrowers to participate in HAMP before referring a loan to foreclosure or conducting a scheduled foreclosure sale.

Second, the U.S. Treasury require servicers to use a particular net present value calculation developed specifically for HAMP (“ HAMP NPV”). The HAMP NPV was developed specifically for HAMP by a group of experts taken from the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. The HAMP NPV attempts to predict whether the lender/investor will make more money by modifying the mortgage or foreclosing. Under HAMP, if the lender will make more money entering into a HAMP modification with the borrower (resulting in a positive HAMP NPV)--and assuming the mortgage loan is otherwise eligible under HAMP (which is discussed below)--the lender must offer a HAMP modification and cease all current efforts to foreclose. However, if the lender will lose more money entering into a HAMP modification with the borrower (resulting in a negative HAMP NPV), the lender may proceed with foreclosure.

Thus, under HAMP, lenders and/or mortgage servicers are required to make a conscious and calculated determination as to whether the pursuit of a foreclosure will be financially beneficial for the lender/investor before the foreclosure is actively pursued--which presumptively should result in fewer foreclosures--thereby providing more stability to the U.S. economy and achieving the purpose intended by the United States Congress.

Controversy
Many have argued that HAMP has been grossly ineffective. According to the National Taxpayer Union: "HAMP has proven a colossal failure that has done more to harm than help debt-laden homeowners. Having only achieved slightly more than 500,000 permanent modifications, 40% of which the Treasury expects to default, HAMP has fallen dramatically short of its goal of helping 3 to 4 million homeowners avoid foreclosure. To date, far more borrowers have dropped out of the program than successfully achieved permanent loan modification. These borrowers, along with those who later default, will often be left with larger outstanding debt, worse credit scores, and less home equity. Congress should pass legislation that eliminates the HAMP program, to put an end to these counterproductive outcomes while saving taxpayers billions of dollars." However, the United States Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) conducted it own investigation and reported its findings in its report titled: Mortgage Foreclosures:  Documentation Problems Reveal Need for Ongoing Regulatory Oversight. According to the GAO, not only have banking regulators issued enforcement orders to various mortgage servicers for various mortgage servicing deficiencies, but the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the U.S. Treasury have all issued letters to their respective servicers reminding them of their obligations to properly perform and document all of their required mortgage servicing activities. Moreover, according to the GAO: "Further, the regulators’ reviews also revealed that most servicers did not maintain sufficient staffing levels to process the increasing volume of foreclosures, nor were staff adequately trained to perform this work in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. For example, regulators found that one servicer that had previously understaffed this function and had not provided adequate training increased its document-signing staff from 5 to 80 and revised its training to include guidance for judicial foreclosures to address deficiencies in foreclosure processing."

Thus, while there are those who argue that HAMP is ineffective, it appears as if Federal governmental agencies are, at the very least, indirectly suggesting that the mortgage servicers may be to blame. As a result, it appears as if at least one government-sponsored enterprise has taken action that comports with the recommendations of the GAO. For example, Fannie Mae has mandated that all of its servicers must not only take potential foreclosures to mediation before attempting to foreclose--but these same mortgage servicers must (1) submit written pre-foreclosure offers to the homeowners before leaving the mediation and (2) maintain documentation that it submitted such written pre-foreclosure offers to the homeowners at the mediation.

Drumph (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement tag
I am going to remove the parts that read like advertisements and remove the tag. If anyone insists on restoring the parts I remove, please restore the tag as well. Warren Dew (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim about HAMP Eligibility based on loan to value
The statement that the home can not be more than 5% below the loan value would seem to be false. It is immediately dubious because the crisis involves some home values quickly falling by 25%-50% in value. The target of HAMP was not those whose homes only fell a few percent in value.... The current criteria for HAMP can be found from the government website at https://www.hmpadmin.com/portal/programs/docs/hamp_servicer/mhahandbook_32.pdf -- on p.46-47 the eligibility criteria for HAMP Loan Modification are listed. A minimum home value relative to the original loan value does not seem to be listed from a quick reading through the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.246.15.134 (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think someone is confusing the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) with the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP). When HARP started there was a 105% LTV limit.  This was changed to 125% on July 1, 2009 and completely removed in December 2011.  HAMP has no such limit.  --Pascal666 06:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)