|
In the summer of 1984, the United States Supreme Court passed down the influential Chevron decision, which held that courts should defer to an executive agency’s reasonable interpretation of otherwise ambiguous statutes that the agency is tasked to implement. In the summer of 2024, forty years later, in a dramatic shift, the United States Supreme Court overturned and upended Chevron, now holding that the judiciary must adjudicate, rather than abdicate its constitutional responsibilities under Article III to say what the law is.While prior decisions that relied on Chevron are not automatically overturned, their precedential value is of paramount concern, requiring attorneys to question how to navigate this new legal landscape.
When Congress enacts a statute, it cannot possibly address or conceive of every potential interpretation or application of its text. Congress’ statutory silence or ambiguity, whether unintentional or not, can create highly technical questions such as: “When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a ‘protein’? How distinct is ‘distinct’ for squirrel populations? What size ‘geographic area’ will ensure appropriate hospital reimbursement? As between two equally feasible understandings of ‘stationary source,’ should one choose the one more protective of the environment or the one more favorable to economic growth?” Despite lacking the subject matter expertise to resolve these types of questions, Article III of the United States Constitution assigns the judicial branch the responsibility of providing final interpretation of the laws. Rather than leaving the interpretation of its statutes to the courts, Congress can explicitly empower an agency to interpret a statute through rulemaking authority. For example, Congress gave the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) the authority to “prescribe rules and issue orders and guidance, as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws”.If Congress explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, that is an express delegation of authority to the agency to clarify a specific statutory provision by regulation, and the court must give controlling weight to these regulations unless “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute”. With Chevron, the United States Supreme Court set the standard for affording the responsible executive agency deference in interpreting the statutes that the agency implements. The application of Chevron deference became colloquially known as the “Chevron two-step”. In step one, the court applied its ordinary tools of statutory construction to determine whether Congress directly spoke to the precise question at issue. If Congress’ intent was clear, that ended the matter; the court and agency had to give effect to the unambiguous intent expressed by Congress. If the court determines that the statute is silent or ambiguous as to the specific issue, step two is defer to the agency’s reasonable, permissible interpretation of the agency-administered statute. As United States Supreme Court Justice Roberts notes, “[b]ecause Chevron in its original, two-step form was so indeterminate and sweeping, we have instead been forced to clarify the doctrine again and again. Our attempts to do so have only added to Chevron’s unworkability, transforming the original two-step into a dizzying breakdance.”In Justice Kagan’s dissent, however, she wittily criticizes that “the exceptions that so upset the majority require merely a rote, check-the-box inquiry. If that is the majority’s idea of a ‘dizzying breakdance’ . . . the majority needs to get out more.” In a six-to-three decision, the United States Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo overruled Chevron, holding that the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” The APA prescribes no deferential standard, specifying that courts, not agencies, will decide “all relevant questions of law” arising on review of agency action, even those involving ambiguous laws. Agency interpretations of statutes, like agency interpretations of the Constitution, are not entitled to deference. Chevron required courts to set aside traditional interpretive tools and defer to an agency’s “permissible construction of the statute,” even if not “the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding”, but “[i]n the business of statutory interpretation, if it is not the best, it is not permissible.” Although the Judiciary can respect the subject matter expertise of the Executive Branch’s agencies’ interpretations of a statute, especially when made contemporaneous to enactment and consistent over time, the views of the Executive Branch cannot “supersede” the judgment of the Judiciary. The overruling of Chevron revives the doctrine of Skidmore deference, where the weight the Judiciary should give agency interpretations depends on “the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.” Justice Kagan cautions, however, that “[i]f the majority thinks that the same judges who argue today about where ‘ambiguity’ resides are not going to argue tomorrow about what ‘respect’ requires, I fear it will be gravely disappointed.” Despite the drastic shift in the agency deference paradigm, individual cases decided under Chevron remain good law. The holdings of prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework are subject to stare decisis; mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a “special justification” for overruling prior holdings. Through this holding, the Supreme Court punts all agency action challenges for future courts to decide. Further, Loper Bright might practically operate the same as Chevron, with courts relying on agency expertise even if not affording blind deference. Although courts are now free to rule otherwise, it is possible that courts will rule the same way on agency actions as they had under Chevron. And agencies with broad enabling statutes may not have to worry about the paradigm shift at all. The CFPB, for example, will likely retain much of the authority it enjoyed during the Chevron era. There have already been cases decided in the wake of Loper Bright where the court still deferred to the CFPB’s interpretation of the statutes the agency is responsible for. In Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Townstone Fin., Inc., for example, the Seventh Circuit, acknowledging that it must review the case de novo in a post-Chevron world, still deferred to the CFPB’s interpretation of Regulation B, reversing the lower court’s decision that the CFPB had acted outside of the statutory bounds of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”). Rather than blind deference, however, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that the CFPB’s interpretation accorded with the plain text and purposes of the ECOA, when taken as a whole. In 2010, Congress transferred all consumer financial protection functions from the Federal Reserve, OCC, OTS, FDIC, FTC, NCUA, and HUD to the CFPB. Congress granted the CFPB the authority “to establish the general policies of the Bureau with respect to all executive and administrative functions, including . . . implementing the Federal consumer financial laws through rules, orders, guidance, interpretations, statements of policy, examinations, and enforcement actions.” And as previously mentioned, Congress explicitly granted broad rulemaking authority to the CFPB: “The Director may prescribe rules and issue orders and guidance, as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.” Further, where the authority of the CFPB and another agency to prescribe rules under the federal consumer financial laws overlap, the CFPB has “the exclusive authority to prescribe rules.” “[T]he deference that a court affords to the Bureau with respect to a determination by the Bureau regarding the meaning or interpretation of any provision of a Federal consumer financial law shall be applied as if the Bureau were the only agency authorized to apply, enforce, interpret, or administer the provisions of such Federal consumer financial law.” The CFPB, therefore, maintains extensive express authority regardless of the state of the judicial doctrine of agency deference. Courts have found that 12 U.S.C. § 5512(b)(4) is enough to explicitly grant the CFPB authority to fill in gaps left in federal consumer financial laws. And further, courts have found that the CFPB’s commentary, which provides official interpretations of its regulations, is “highly persuasive” even if not binding. In White v. First Step Grp. LLC, the court held that while unpromulgated proposed rules are not entitled to Chevron deference, the CFPB’s pronouncements therein are persuasive under Skidmore deference. Thus, even under the returning Skidmore standard, courts are likely to afford substantial deference to the CFPB’s reasonable interpretations of federal consumer finance statutes. Chevron does not appear to be a vital factor in deferring to the CFPB’s interpretations, with some courts accepting the CFPB’s interpretations irrespective of Chevron. In Nat'l Cmty. Reinvestment Coal. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, for example, the court held that “[e]ven dispensing with the Chevron framework, which the parties invoke, and ‘[u]sing a statutory interpretation lens,’ CFPB has ‘offered the best construction of the statute,’ and thus the Court adopts the agency's understanding.” And in Ginsberg v. I.C. Sys., the plaintiff alleged that an undated FDCPA Letter, which followed the CFPB’s Model Form, violated the FDCPA because the lack of date “misled as to the status of the subject debt”, while the defendant argued that the Model Form’s “safe harbor” under Regulation F was entitled to Chevron deference. Without any mention of Chevron, the court rejected the CFPB’s interpretation of the FDCPA and held that “compliance with Regulation F, alone, does not provide a ‘safe harbor’ from violation of the FDCPA. Similarly, in Berlin v. Renaissance Rental Partners, LLC, the Second Circuit deferred to the CFPB’s interpretation of the term “lot” without mentioning Chevron at all, instead applying Auer deference. Under Auer deference (sometimes called “Seminole Rock deference”), when an agency interprets its own ambiguous regulation, the Court defers to the agency’s interpretation unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. In 2019, the Supreme Court declined to overrule Auer due to stare decisis considerations, but Loper Bright’s overruling of Chevron may signal a similar overruling of Auer in the future. In the meantime, the CFPB will continue to enjoy Skidmore and Auer deference even in a post-Chevron world. The CPFB’s rulemaking and interpretative authority is especially notable in combination with its funding mechanism that the Supreme Court recently endorsed as complying with the Appropriations Clause. Most federal agencies must petition Congress for funds on an annual basis, but Congress authorized the CFPB to draw the amount its Director deems “reasonably necessary to carry out” the CFPB’s duties from the Federal Reserve, subject to an inflation-adjusted cap. The CFPB cannot request more than twelve percent (12%) of the Federal Reserve System’s total operating expenses as reported in fiscal year 2009, adjusted for inflation. In fiscal year 2022, that cap was about $734 million. Loper Bright opens the floodgates for challenges to agency action, casting previously permissible agency interpretations into uncertainty. But even in a post-Chevron world, compliance attorneys should worry that courts will still tacitly defer to the statutory interpretations of administrative agencies, like the CFPB. Even if courts can no longer blindly defer to the CFPB, courts can still rule (and already are ruling) that the CFPB’s interpretations are entitled to respect. As the CFPB proposes amendments to Regulation X, compliance attorneys must ensure that our loan servicing clients adhere to the new loss mitigation requirements, including notices and timing. In sending out compliant FDCPA notices, must law firms (and debt collectors) adhere to Regulation F, or may they rely on the clear and unambiguous language of 15 USC 1692g? Mortgage industry compliance attorneys are paying close attention as courts start to decide these questions and give shape to the newest incarnation of the agency deference doctrine. Matthew Fleck, Esq. is an associate attorney in the compliance department of Stern & Eisenberg, P.C. The law firm operates in the states of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and West Virginia. The firm offers services in third party creditors’ rights, transactional real estate, litigation and regulatory and compliance matters. Footnotes were removed from the original version of this article. For a copy of the original with citations, please email us. The long-anticipated interest rate cut has finally happened. You might be surprised with the limited reaction by the market to the .50% cut in interest rates. The market has been anticipating the interest rate cut for months. The expectation that the Federal Reserve would cut short-term interest rates was one of the factors that lead to the 1.00% drop in the 30-year fixed rate mortgage interest rate over the last few months. Going forward as the Federal Reserve continues to cut interest rates the interest rate on 30-year fixed rate mortgage may not move substantially. The mortgage market is finally returning to normal levels. You need to go back prior to the housing crisis to see what normal mortgage interest rates look like. The Freddie Mac Research group generated the following graphs. The first graph shows the historical Primary Mortgage Market interest rate.  The graph shows that the current mortgage interest rate has returned to the interest rates offered during the first decade of the century prior to the housing market. You can see from the graph the dip in interest rates that occurred starting in 2008 with the housing crisis. The housing crisis was a pivotal time for both fiscal and monetary policy. The housing crisis ushered in a time of zero interest rates from the Federal Reserve and massive deficit spending to stimulate the economy to keep the economy from tipping into a depression. From the housing crisis until 2022 mortgage interest rates were kept artificially low because the Federal Reserve not only kept short term interest rates at zero. The Federal Reserve also bought large amounts of long-term Treasuries and Mortgage-Backed Securities. Since 2022 the Federal Reserve has raised short term interest rates and sharply curtailed their purchase of US Treasuries and Mortgage-Backed Securities. The Federal Government is still running very large deficit that will be stimulating the economy and could limit the size of future Federal Reserve interest rate cuts. The next graph from the Freddie Mac Research group shows the relationship between interest rate mortgages, 10-year treasury yields, and Fed Funds. You can see that mortgage interest rates and the 10-year treasury yield are very closely correlated. The Fed Funds rate is not closely correlated to mortgage interest rates. As you look at these graphs, keep in mind that the GSE have raised guarantee fees by over 40 basis points which will explain .40% of the widening between the spread between the Primary Mortgage Market interest rate and the yield on the 10-year treasury. The Federal Reserve can have a great influence on short-term interest rates for credit cards, auto loans, and interest rates banks pay on deposits. Mortgage interest rates will be affected more by the expectation for future inflation. Federal Reserve policy decisions could have an indirect effect on the mortgage market by signaling their level of concern about future inflation.  This guest post was authored by Ted Tozer, Non-Resident Fellow, Housing Finance Policy Center, Former President and CEO of Ginnie Mae & AISLE Cross-Section Leader.
Stern & Eisenberg is pleased to announce the appointment of Patrick O’Brien to Chief Operating Officer. Pat brings over 27 years of industry expertise and leadership in the mortgage default industry through his extensive experience with mortgage servicers and law firms. “I am excited to have Patrick as our Chief Operating Officer. He is the strategic leader I have wanted to enable Stern & Eisenberg to grow our ability to assist our clients with their everyday legal needs while also allowing our attorneys to focus on providing creative legal solutions when needed. Patrick will continue to be an important team member involved in the success of Stern & Eisenberg,” says Steven Eisenberg, Esq., Founding Shareholder at Stern & Eisenberg. Pat embodies commitment to service excellence at every stage in the mortgage servicing life-cycle. Pat has developed a strong reputation and fostered lifelong industry relationships with servicers, investors, banks, and financial industry partners. Pat is focused on enhancing our unified platform, aligning and providing transparency across the S&E multi-state footprint for all team members and valued clients.
Stern & Eisenberg is a full-service law firm Transforming Legal Challenges into Creative Solutions. S&E provides legal representation in a variety of matters throughout the firm’s footprint. S&E focuses on creditors’ rights, including representation of secured creditors in connection with residential and commercial foreclosures, bankruptcy and bankruptcy litigation, REO and post-foreclosure conveyancing, loss mitigation/loan modifications, evictions, as well as other general practice areas including, but not limited to, real estate and business law; commercial and corporate litigation, real estate closings, estate planning and administration throughout the firm’s larger footprint.
S&E’s multistate footprint for GSE matters includes New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia. S&E also has attorneys licensed in additional states, including, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC. Reach out to Pat via email or call 215-572-8111 extension 1056 or [email protected]. We Must Do More: Addressing The Shifting Tides of Homelessness, Rental Housing and Homeownership.6/27/2024
This contribution is from guest bloggers and industry thought leaders Faith Schwartz, Founder & CEO, Housing Finance Strategies and Stuart Quinn, Managing Director, Housing Finance Strategies. Learn more at HousingFinanceStrategies.com. Congratulations to co-founders Marrisa Yaker, and Cade Holleman, for founding the American Institute of Servicing and Legal Executives (AISLE). Your focus in spreading the word on new regulations and developing solutions for the many challenges facing lenders, loan servicers and consumers, will continue to assist in decoding the complexities of housing finance. Our housing and mortgage industry must do more to ensure access to safe and affordable shelter for all. To do this, we need to have a 360-degree view of the lifecycle of housing to charter a path toward accessible credit, for resilient and sustainable housing for all. First time homebuyer: For many of us, the tradition of leaving your childhood home, renting an apartment, and eventually, purchasing a home is a common path to homeownership. I was fortunate enough to buy my first home in my 20’s. At the time, it seemed like an expensive proposition. But I was encouraged to do so by my bosses to help me get established. My first townhome was purchased in 1986, for $140,000 in Fairfax VA. The reasonable debt to income (DTI) had me well within conventional guidelines as I secured my 7/23 ballon-a FNMA product with a rate of 7 3/8 %. And this began my path towards building wealth and my future downpayment of a home when I married.
The global pandemic had an outsized impact on homeownership and rental housing. There were more refinances of existing loans than recorded in history given the record low-rate environment. Under COVID 19 protocols, the world adjusted to remote work where white-collar employment remained steady and productive but the service economy and ancillary services were devastated. Despite the federal government support in many areas, the post pandemic challenges remain significant. The supply chains and building of homes were delayed, inflation remains stubbornly high (particularly for housing) and many existing homeowners have been disincentivized from listing their properties to make step-up purchases. This is due to their mortgage rates being below current market rates further reducing the available supply of for-sale homes.
The current state of housing in the post-pandemic carries residual overhangs left from the pandemic, combined with high interest rates and strong undercurrents of demographic shifts. A key set of highlights and challenges going forward include:
What can we do to improve the current state of play for housing and shelter? Update Government programs to reflect the current state of housing, offering more program and product innovation and use of emerging technology. Private industry, stakeholders and government agency markets should continue to make strides leveraging source data and emerging technology to drive change in housing access. Regulators should pay close attention to innovation and rules that create a “sandbox” for the rules of the road moving forward. And public policy will continue to have a role in driving the percentage shifts in homeownership, rental homes and addressing the chronic challenges for those unsheltered across the country. We know the demand exists for affordable access to credit and housing. By improving our processes and programs, we can scale into solutions to drive improved ownership metrics. Examples of technological innovation on the supply side may include leveraging new technologies like 3D printing and other prefabrication to produce faster time to market. Continued efforts to evaluate and scale effective localized changes more broadly for ADU and manufactured housing policies for development of smaller homes will also continue to drive affordability for the first time homebuyer (FTHB). Much shared effort and partnership were cornerstones to the pandemic response in housing to deliver new options for distressed renters and borrowers alike, a similar renewed focus and partnership should be made towards safe and creative financing solutions on the front-end, such as shared equity down payment assistance and new financing alternatives with consumer safeguards and choice to leverage new programs. Despite a period of surging refinances, overall costs to originate remained stubbornly high, re-evaluation of redundant processes and leveraging source data, utility like consortiums for tech and data, holds the potential to drive and democratize credit. Driving these types of changes should be key aspirations for all housing market participants to forge a broader and better path forward. Today, VA published details on the highly anticipated Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) Program which is now set for launch on May 31. As a reminder, VA previously published an agency information collection activity in November 2023 on this program. In the information collection, VA stated, “VA is initiating an expanded program using existing Refund provisions. This option will assist Veterans with VA-guaranteed loans who have defaulted on their mortgage loan and are facing foreclosure. Under this program, VA will exercise its statutory option to purchase the loan from the servicer and VA will hold the loan in VA's own loan portfolio. The servicer will prepare a modification of the loan to increase affordability for the Veteran. Servicers who participate in the program are required to document their efforts to assist the Veteran through a waterfall of existing loss mitigation options and provide that documentation to VA. Information collection is necessary to ensure that Veterans and servicers comply with VA program requirements under VASP that are not already covered by existing, approved information collections for loan servicing and loan refunding.” In addition to the Press Release and Chapter 9 published today, VA published a VA Servicer Newsflash with the below information and Appendix F on VASP. “Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Manual 26-4 Servicer Handbook, Chapter 9, has been updated to include new information regarding the VA Servicing Purchase (VASP) program. In addition, Appendix F “Additional VA Contact Information” has been replaced with the new “VA Home Retention Waterfall.” Changes are outlined on the corresponding transmittal documents dated April 10, 2024, and the policy is effective May 31, 2024. The updated M26-4 and transmittals are available here. Accepting VASP submissions – Servicers can send VASP submissions to VA beginning May 31, 2024. VA recognizes that servicers may need time to comply, therefore servicers have until October 1, 2024, to implement. Servicers should report any IT solutions that cause extended timeframes in VASP implementation. Servicers should ensure all home retention options, including VASP, are considered prior to foreclosure. All inquiries related to this announcement are to be submitted in ServiceNow. To read VA Servicer Handbook M26-4 Appendix F: VA Home Retention Waterfall, click here.
Additionally, VA materials state that “Veterans will not apply directly for VASP. Instead, beginning May 31, mortgage servicers will identify qualified borrowers and submit requests on behalf of Veterans based on a review of all home retention options available and qualifying criteria. Veterans facing financial hardship should work with their mortgage servicers to explore available options.”
AISLE Submits Letter to VA with Feedback on VASP Program, Urges Consideration of Key Concerns1/17/2024
AISLE submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on the VA Servicing Purchase Program (VASP) and offered suggested recommendations for consideration. Per the VA Press Release published in November 2023, VASP will allow VA to purchase defaulted VA loans from mortgage servicers, modify the loans, and then place them in the VA-owned portfolio as direct loans.
AISLE’s recommendations were based on the intent to assist Servicers and Borrowers once the program is published. Specifically, requesting tools for mortgage servicers to successfully implement the program once published. Having additional tools once the program is published will ensure a smooth implementation for both Borrowers and Servicers. Below, you will find some of the recommendations for consideration that were referenced: • Requested the Agency allow mortgage servicers ample time to implement the new program, including recommendations of the following:
• AISLE offered data and general feedback on the note rate, which creates a sustainable monthly payment. Members can click here to request a PDF copy of the full letter. AISLE closed its Founding Member opportunity on Tuesday, January 9, 2024, weeks ahead of its scheduled run due to overwhelming interest from the industry. The Institute soft-launched on November 30, 2023, and offered a Founding Member opportunity through the first 24 members or January 24, 2024, whichever occurred first. "We are exceptionally grateful for the trust placed in AISLE and its mission to shape regulatory policy, first by our Advisory Board members and Cross-Section Leaders. And today, we're thrilled by the response from the industry and those law firms and businesses that have stepped forward as thought leaders intent on shaping the regulatory environment that binds us as collaborators more than competitors," said Co-Founder Cade Holleman, M.A. Board Chair Marissa Yaker, Esq. added, "As we wrap up our very exciting launch, I am eager to turn our attention to the work ahead of us: focusing our combined energies on regulatory policy, meaningful and impactful change at the agency, servicing, and legal levels, and working to improve the broader housing industry for all market participants." AISLE Founding Members are listed below, in order of commitment.
Founding Members will have a role in shaping the AISLE Member Code and have a closed-door Founding Members session annually, as well as other membership perks. Additionally, AISLE's initial offering of annual sponsorships sold-out during the same November 30, 2023 to January 9, 2024 window.
Top-level 2024 sponsors at LV4 are a360inc, McMichael Taylor Gray, and LOGS Legal Network. LV3 annual sponsors include McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, Ghidotti | Berger, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, and Codilis & Associates. Additionally, Steele, LLP and the Council for Inclusion in Financial Services are LV4 digital sponsors for 2024. While the Founding Member opportunity has closed, general membership in AISLE is still available to interested law firms and businesses intent on shaping the industry's regulatory environment and operating climate. If you are interested in contributing to the Institute's work on these critical, forward-looking policy improvement goals, you can learn more about how your business can become an important member of the AISLE community by clicking here. The OCC has published its Mortgage Metrics Report for the Third Quarter of 2023. The Report presents performance data for the third quarter of 2023 for loans that the reporting banks own or service for others as a fee-based business. The data in the report reflects a portion of first lien mortgages in the country, excluding junior liens, home equity lines of credit, and home equity conversion mortgages. For perspective, “the reporting banks serviced approximately 11.8 million first-lien residential mortgage loans with $2.7 trillion in unpaid principal balances. This $2.7 trillion was 22 percent of all residential mortgage debt outstanding in the United States.” Daren Blomquist, Vice President, Market Economics, Auction.com, and AISLE Cross-Section Leader for Trends + Technology, also reviewed the data noted the below. "while somewhat skewed toward an inherently less risky segment of the market, this report provides more confirmation that mortgage performance has settled into a more stable, sustainable pattern over the past year as the dust settled from the whirlwind market of 2020 and 2021. Absent of some unforeseen shock to the economy or housing market, I’d expect this pattern to continue in 2024. I will be keeping a close eye on redefault rates, which have now increased for five consecutive quarters and have doubled since the fourth quarter of 2021, when the pandemic foreclosure moratorium ended. If redefault rates continue to rise, it could be an indication that more distressed homeowners who have held off foreclosure in the short term are running out of runway when it comes to avoiding foreclosure for the long term.” Marissa Yaker, Deputy General Counsel of Regulatory Affairs, Padgett Law Group and Chairperson of AISLE, adds her thoughts on the Report's data. "as an industry, we have BEEN SEEING LOW DEFAULT RATES, but the re-default data is interesting to track in light of all the loss mitigation that took place during the past few years. Hopefully, these Borrowers can benefit from the additional programs that some of the agencies will be releasing in 2024." Within the Report, the OCC includes a chart that highlights the Number of Re-Defaults for Loans Modified Six Months Previously Modified Loans 60 or More Days Delinquent Six Months After Modification by State. It is interesting to review, due to all the loss mitigation in light of the pandemic. Some of the key points from the OCC Report:
Summary of Delinquent Loans:
Summary of Modifications:
Link to the OCC Report: Mortage Metrics Report Third Quarter 2023 (occ.gov) |
