top of page

COVID-19 has exposed the cracks in mortgage modification reporting

Writer's picture: Payton Legal GroupPayton Legal Group

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed numerous faults in the reporting of mortgage modifications, with “numerous cases of underreported or entirely omitted modification behavior” – the kind of reporting errors that led to problems in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, according to a consumer lending data-analytics firm.


dv01, which provides loan-level consumer lending analytics for the mortgage industry, recently issued a white paper detailing what it called an “outdated reporting structure for mortgages.”


“Throughout the pandemic, we have observed significant irregularities and inconsistencies in reporting across multiple parties involved in the process,” dv01 said. “Despite nearly four months of reporting cycles, there are numerous cases of underreported or entirely omitted modification behavior. Data report quality varies across deals and even between reporting parties within a single deal.”


The study found that common misreporting included instances where no modifications were reported but loan balances increased month over month, as well as discrepancies in the total number of modified loans reported between multiple servicers. The firm also highlighted a deal by “a prominent non-QM issuer” in which it was able to identify 233 loan modifications, while the master servicer reported only 74 and the trustee reported only 41.


“It was these types of reporting errors that created information asymmetries during the [2008 Global Financial Crisis], which led to an increase in price volatility when previously reported numbers were later corrected,” dv01 said.


The firm compared the traditional mortgage space to the world of online lending, where it said misreporting errors are less common.


“In online lending, issuers predominantly service loans in-house and servicing is dedicated solely to the issuer’s loans,” dvo1 said. “As a relatively new asset class, the online lending sector, by its nature, is technology driven – reporting documentation and communication is fully digital – and the data has less intermediaries.


“… The relationships and chain of reporting is very different in the mortgage world,” the firm said. “Issuers and servicers are entirely different entities, so the relationships are not always clearly aligned in terms of investor transparency. Furthermore, servicers are tasked with loan portfolios from a multitude of issuers and loan types, from agencies to non-QM to RPL. Issuers therefore have less ability to direct servicing reporting standards. Additionally, there can be multiple servicers per securitization, each with a different approach to reporting and capturing modifications.”


Because there are so many links in these communication chains, there are more opportunities for error, dv01 said.


“To date, we have not observed these communication chains yield cleansed, validated, consistent, and standardized reporting for investors and stakeholders,” the firm said. “Even more concerning, most of these entities have been reporting or underreporting modifications for over a decade because they were so prominent in non-agency securitizations after the GFC.”


The firm pushed for a more streamlined mortgage-modification reporting system.

“The current mortgage reporting architecture is fragmented, outdated, and inefficient, and COVID-19 is further exposing the faulty reporting system,” dv01 said. “In order for investors to gain confidence in the health of the mortgage market and the broader economy, the industry needs a more modern and innovative approach to how we report modifications. To accomplish this, we need alignment, advocacy, and accountability across all industry participants, and an entity overseeing and coordinating these efforts in every securitization.”

2 views0 comments

Comments


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Pinterest
  • Tumblr Social Icon
  • Instagram

© 2023 Payton Law Group

Attorney Advertising. This website is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for relief under the bankruptcy code.  Attorney Rusty Payton and Payton Legal Group LLC are responsible for the content of this site.  Attorney Rusty Payton is licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Illinois and by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties in the practice of law. Certification is not a requirement to practice law in Illinois. 

Attorney Rusty A. Payton has practiced in Chicago for the last thirty years. He is an honors graduate of the Ohio State University and the Ohio State College of Law. His practice areas are centered around helping people and businesses with some of the most important aspects of their financial lives. Buying a home, signing a lease, getting a security deposit back, forming a new business, filing bankruptcy, negotiating debt relief, dealing with foreclosure or working with a mortgage lender to modify a loan or perform a short sale - these are all common aspects of the firm's practice.

Mr. Payton's overriding concern is to always match his clients' goals with the best and most practical legal solution.  He does this by listening, communicating and employing legal strategies and remedies that suit the particular client situation. He understands that every client brings a unique set of facts and circumstances to the table.  His work on behalf of all clients is just as personal.  At our firm, clients are treated with the utmost respect, and their legal needs are met with exceptional attention to detail, understanding and professionalism.

bottom of page