= Subscriber content; or subscribe now to access all American Banker content.

Foreclosure Review Pays Consultant $4 for Each $1 to Homeowners

This is the second part of a story on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's independent foreclosure review program. A close look suggests that the program is taking far longer than originally expected and resulting in much larger payments to consultants than to wronged borrowers.

Consumer groups have been quick to criticize the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's independent foreclosure look-back reviews for giving the banks under scrutiny too much say in the process of reviewing their own loans.

A more fundamental issue­—the actual mechanics of the reviews and their results—has received less attention.

The OCC granted each consultant responsibility for designing its review methods. Promontory Financial Group, which is conducting Bank of America's review, includes seven sets of yes-or-no questions, labeled A through G. For each homeowner's review file, Promontory and B of A employees must address a total of 14,768 items, according to a May 2012 presentation Promontory provided to consumer groups.

That involves Bank of America employees attaching supporting documentation to each file, ranging from customer service call notes to payment records to internal bank documents. Promontory then fills out a final questionnaire, labeled H, that is intended to determine remediation and compensation.

Many of the A through G questions are compound, according to B of A file reviewers. Among the simplest of a handful shown to consumer groups: "Did the amount of any of the fees or penalties assessed/charged to the borrower exceed the limits established in the loan documents and modifications, if applicable?"

Promontory offered to provide the full list to American Banker if the OCC gave its consent. The regulator declined to do so.

"We create a storyline of what happened to the borrower," says Elizabeth McCaul, the head of Promontory's New York office and an architect of its foreclosure review program. "There's never been so thorough and deep a review [of foreclosures] … It was very important to have very objective conditions."

Bank of America's reviewers themselves expressed varying views the process. One contract worker said he believes it's a charade. Another was ambivalent. A third, a senior reviewer, called it a good-faith effort to rectify wrongs. The three employees did agree that there is widespread belief among ground-level reviewers that Bank of America made egregious errors during foreclosures proceedings.

"The way [B of A management] explained it to us was that a lot of people had been wrongfully denied modifications, that there were a lot of situations where the right and left hands didn't know what the other was doing," one of the contract employees recalls. "It was our job per [regulators' consent order] to determine if people were wronged,"

Intentions aside, there is abundant evidence that the review process itself has taken on a life of its own. In an engagement letter with B of A that was released by the OCC in November of last year, Promontory estimated it would take 10 hours to review each file during a 54-month exercise. The process now seems destined to mushroom to several times that size. The E and F questionnaires alone, relating to fees, penalties, and escrows, can take 20 hours to complete, Promontory says.

File reviewers say modifications are particularly vexing to sort through because Bank of America had dozens of programs in place. In some cases, it also sent borrowers flurries of contradictory solicitations, rejections and new solicitations within a matter of weeks. Borrowers were offered loan mods that they did not qualify for or were rejected over a lack of paperwork already in the bank's files.

Assembling individual paper trials to document what happened has proven exceedingly difficult, even when all files remained in B of A's possession.

"In a lot of cases, there were missing documents that were key to determining whether true harm was caused," says one B of A contract employee.

Essential foreclosure-related paperwork was also often in the hands of outside counsel, which rarely responded to reviewers' requests. Under the OCC's rules, if evidence to prove or disprove harm is lacking, the reviewer is supposed to assume it occurred.

The process has been dragged out further by repeated changes. Late last spring, a full half-year after B of A started staffing up, reviewers report doing "practice" work because guidelines remained undecided. As time went on, protocols changed weekly, and Promontory's visits to the Westlake facility became more tense.

"It seemed to me that things were kind of unraveling. There was a lot of bickering going on," says a B of A contract employee, adding that the problems appeared to rest with those above B of A's review managers.

Dan Frahm, a B of A spokesman, said that Promontory was handling all significant determinations under the program. He directed questions regarding the reviews' cost, length, and design to Promontory. McCaul said it is not possible to calculate an average time or cost per file because the review is ongoing.


(4) Comments



Comments (4)
Har-har! Anything that cost the banks more money is a good thing. This will drive up the prices to the consumer which will help the consumer to make a decision to leave the big banks.

"Assembling individual paper trials to document what happened has proven exceedingly difficult, even when all files remained in B of A's possession." Why not use the tried and true bank solution of FRAUD and FORGERY? This is still the favored method for banks today when it comes to illegally foreclosing on Americans. Where does the banking industry find such corrupt people? Banks continue to prove that they are nothing more than continuing criminal enterprises. Do you need a list of their RECENT crimes?
Posted by Ban KKiller | Monday, November 05 2012 at 1:33PM ET
Four to one is a good forecast of the cost-benefit ratio of the CFPB.
Posted by kvillani | Monday, November 05 2012 at 12:17PM ET
What so complicated when the OCC & Fed have done a study and 800,000 borrowers who applied for modifications should have received one. One only has to know that there is one group of borrowers that fits the bill who should have been modified and that was the 20% of the 4.4 million foreclosed during 2008-2010 and that is the government insured loans (FHA & VA).

In fact it not even an issuing modification, because in fact their properties are actual free of the debt that the banks where trying to collect. News Flash, once you sign and endorse a Note in blank and you hand over that document to anyone, they become the physical owner of the Note however if they don't purchase the Note the Note has no value. As Notes are an agreement of debt, however Ginnie Mae who is currently holding millions of blank Notes, they cannot do anything with the Notes as they are not owed a single red cent because they have not purchase the loans debt.

This is a waste of money because we already know the outcome of any government insured and we don't need a review board to tell us that the loan were illegally foreclosed because it a fact of procedures as to how things are, without an exception.

Posted by charleswreed | Sunday, November 04 2012 at 12:06AM ET
What an absolute disgrace this process is. Poorly planned, pitifully executed. Totally a ready-fire-aim approach. All exacerbated by a complete lack of accountability from "consultants" who are "gravy training" this to situation to death.
Posted by scobbin | Friday, November 02 2012 at 5:19PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.