Default Mortgage Servicing Simplified
2 likes2,329 views
The document discusses the challenges faced by the U.S. mortgage servicing industry in default management due to increased regulations and inefficient processes since the 2008 financial crisis. It proposes a unified servicing platform to streamline operations, enhance compliance, and reduce costs by linking various default servicing subprocesses. The implementation of such a platform aims to improve operational efficiency and better adapt to regulatory changes.
Default Mortgage Servicing Simplified
- 1. Default Mortgage Servicing Simplified A unified servicing platform can be a valuable tool in dealing with increased regulations and eroding profit margins. Executive Summary In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, the U.S. mortgage industry reeled under an unprecedented level of defaults followed by increased regulations. As a result, default mortgage servicing came under scrutiny. Since 2008, default servicing has been subjected to government mandated programs (HAMP, HARP, etc.), settlements, frequent regulations, GSE policy and procedure updates, etc. The industry has largely been in fire-fighting mode, struggling to keep up with new regulatory and policy moves. This has resulted in inefficient processes, a large number of disparate systems/technologies/rules and maintenance overheads. These, in turn, have eroded profit margins at a time when revenue opportunities are dwindling. It is time for the servicing industry to take a long-term view of default servicing and the regulatory environment. They must streamline, automate and integrate operational processes to create a single platform for default servicing. In this paper, we discuss the current regulatory environment and the challenges faced by servicers. We propose a conceptual approach to address these challenges by leveraging a unified default servicing platform. Overview Default mortgage servicing consists of servicing subprocesses such as loss mitigation, deed-in- lieu, short sale, bankruptcy, pre-foreclosure, fore- closure and real estate owned (REO). These sub- processes provide lenders and borrowers with the best options to mitigate risk. These subprocesses are linked by complex rules and at times more than one subprocess can be active concurrently. For example, bankruptcy and loss mitigation might be in play at the same time. Also, under the prevailing regulations, fore- closure cannot be initiated while the borrower is undergoing loss mitigation. Regulatory Environment Default servicing is subject to regulation by various agencies, laws and justice systems. The key agencies that govern the mortgage industry are the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Federal Housing Administra- tion (FHA), the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Office of Comptroller of Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), state regulatory agencies, insurance regulatory agencies and government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The key regulations are the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), state-specific foreclosure rules and the bankruptcy court system. cognizant 20-20 insights | december 2014 • Cognizant 20-20 Insights
- 2. cognizant 20-20 insights 2 Figure 1 Overview of Default Mortgage Servicing The recent regulatory changes have been driven by the need to protect consumer interests and to tackle the loss of borrower confidence, predatory lending practices and the lack of adequate infor- mation available to borrowers. The current regulatory environment poses several challenges for the servicing of default mortgages, including interdependent and conflicting/overlap- ping regulations, frequent updates and increased operational and compliance costs. Some of the examples of interdependent or con- flicting regulations are highlighted below. • CFPB and bankruptcy courts both regulate servicer response for borrowers during bankruptcy. • Conflicting federal regulations and statewide regulations governing foreclosure practices (differing timelines and processes). • Dual-tracking restrictions allowing only one loss mitigation workout (the process to cure loan delinquency and thus minimize losses) at a time, forcing servicers to accurately monitor loss mitigation workout plans. • Foreclosure must be halted in light of new or pending loan modification documents received or in the event of a bankruptcy filing by the borrower. • Conflicting information, format and mailing requirements for various borrower communica- tions such as Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) letters, event notification letters, monthly billing and escrow statements. • CFPB guidelines requiring prompt credit of partial monthly payments versus bankruptcy guidelines requiring Trustee funds to be kept in a suspense account till one full payment can be applied. The GSE’s guidelines, state regulations and investor guidelines increase the complexity and interdependency of the processes supporting the various regulations. Operational Challenges Traditionally, various default subprocesses have been mutually independent, served by relatively isolated operations/support groups. Conse- quently, the IT infrastructure and applications developed in silos. However, the housing crisis resulted in higher interdependency among opera- tional areas. This, in turn, demanded a compre- hensive view of the borrower’s status. Mortgage default servicing currently faces the following key challenges: • Disjointed operational teams resulting in overlapping/missed procedures and regula- tions (e.g., a foreclosure notice being sent to a borrower who has recently filed for bankruptcy). • Multiple systems/applications for default subprocesses resulting in higher IT mainte- nance costs (usually separate loss mitigation, REO, bankruptcy, recovery and foreclosure applications). • High coordination efforts (large number of operational reports/procedures/touch points to achieve cross-functional coordination). • Limited automation opportunities. • Absence of a unified view of portfolio (multiple segment reports need to be reconciled/ merged). These challenges have resulted in significant overheads and margin erosion for default servicing, requiring servicers to rethink their default processes and the underlying applications enabling those processes. An Integrated Platform The changing regulatory environment and opera- tional challenges faced by mortgage servicers in default servicing warrants careful consideration of existing operational processes and IT infra- structure. Lenders must consider an integrated platform that adequately links the various sub- processes. Short Sale Foreclosure Bankruptcy Recovery Delinquency & Loss Mitigation Deed in Lieu Real Estate Owned Mortgage Default Management
- 3. cognizant 20-20 insights 3 The key features of such a unified default servicing platform would be as follows: • Linked/unified subprocesses. • Linear (one active process at a time). • Configurable (different case types). • Flexible (rules-driven). • Compliant. • Analytics (cross-functional reports). • Integrated (linked upstream/downstream). Figure 2 depicts indicative building blocks and a functional view of a unified default servicing platform. The approach toward this end state could vary depending on the servicer’s existing IT application landscape, operational processes, portfolio com- position, etc. Based on these key factors and addi- tional considerations, servicers need to create a long-term IT roadmap for consolidation and tran- sition. Figure 3 weighs the considerations involved in creating a unified default servicing platform. Figure 2 Figure 3 Unified Default Servicing Platform Building Blocks Pros and Cons of a Unified Default Servicing Platform Case Workflow Rules Engine Integration Bankruptcy Foreclosure REO Workflow Business Functional Access Rules Quality/Audit Investor Operational Regulatory Risk Financial Content Management Print System Legal Field Services Servicing System Short Sale/DIL Loss Mitigation Analytics & Reporting • Increased regulatory compliance, minimize cross-functional gaps & consistent regulatory reporting. • Increased responsiveness to regulatory changes/updates. • Centralized repository for rules acts as “True Source.” • Linear, well-integrated workflow; one process owner per loan. • Lower cost of compliance. • Facilitate audits/litigation support. • Increased operational efficiencies. • Reduce long-term IT costs. • Helps in cross-skilling the servicing teams. • Large application, challenge in terms of maintenance. • Conversion/transition costs from existing systems to new platform. • Complex user access management with multiple operational groups. • Higher initial development and training costs. • Process-specific changes could impact other process areas. • Large number of integration points to accommodate multiple external applications like attorney, legal, marketplace, etc. Advantages Disadvantages
- 4. cognizant 20-20 insights 4 Additionally, there are various determinations that are to be made as part of a long-term strategy. These include build versus buy, in house versus hosted, fixed versus transaction-based cost structure, etc. Some of the build-versus-buy considerations are depicted in Figure 4. Conclusion A unified default servicing system would increase coordination among various default subprocess- es, allow an organization to respond to regulatory changes in a comprehensive manner and eliminate various gaps/pitfalls. The implemen- tation of such a platform would transform the operational underpinnings of default servicing toward more efficient, coordinated, streamlined, flexible and interoperable units. The implemen- tation approach could customize an existing off- the-shelf product or expand/build upon in-house application infrastructure. The transition from existing systems could be carried out in phases (based on subprocesses and/or age/time basis) to mitigate operational risks. A unified default servicing platform has the potential to eliminate significant inefficiencies. The applicability of such a solution for an individ- ual servicer would depend on the scale of default operations, their current IT infrastructure, the operational cost structure and key operational/ regulatory concerns faced by the organization. A careful evaluation would help weigh the pros and cons, build-versus-buy and cost-benefit analysis for each servicer, allowing it (if applicable) to build a long-term default technology roadmap and leverage the strengths of the unified default ser- vicing platform and recent technological trends. Figure 4 Build versus Buy Consideration • Configurability • Flexibility • Cost Structure • Maintenance • Integration • Technology • Scalability • Compliance • Transition • Configurable, capturing different workflow routings. • Rules-driven repository allows easy updates in order to meet regulatory compliance. • Allows for easy maintenance and easy integration with other applications. • Allows flexibility to align technology with overall landscape. • Overall, with a flexible system, it is easy to be compliant. • Higher upfront/fixed cost structure, lower long-term running costs. • Maintenance could turn costly if system design renders it inflexible. • Large in-house development team. • Configurability is product- and vendor-specific, usually higher for COTS products. • Lower upfront implementation costs for COTS products. • Usually scalable products that allow for varying degree of volume. • Established products come with tools to facilitate transition/ onboarding. • Flexibility depends on underlying technology, vendor capabilities ; updates could pose challenges.. • Updates outside of periodic releases could be costly. • Licensing costs could soon add up; document or case-based cost could become prohibitive. • Integration with upstream/ downstream system could be a challenge. • Technology choice would be restricted by product. Build Advantages Buy Disadvantages
- 5. About Cognizant Cognizant (NASDAQ: CTSH) is a leading provider of information technology, consulting, and business process outsourcing services, dedicated to helping the world’s leading companies build stronger business- es. Headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey (U.S.), Cognizant combines a passion for client satisfaction, technology innovation, deep industry and business process expertise, and a global, collaborative work- force that embodies the future of work. With over 75 development and delivery centers worldwide and approximately 199,700 employees as of September 30, 2014, Cognizant is a member of the NASDAQ-100, the S&P 500, the Forbes Global 2000, and the Fortune 500 and is ranked among the top performing and fastest growing companies in the world. Visit us online at www.cognizant.com or follow us on Twitter: Cognizant. World Headquarters 500 Frank W. Burr Blvd. Teaneck, NJ 07666 USA Phone: +1 201 801 0233 Fax: +1 201 801 0243 Toll Free: +1 888 937 3277 Email: inquiry@cognizant.com European Headquarters 1 Kingdom Street Paddington Central London W2 6BD Phone: +44 (0) 20 7297 7600 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7121 0102 Email: infouk@cognizant.com India Operations Headquarters #5/535, Old Mahabalipuram Road Okkiyam Pettai, Thoraipakkam Chennai, 600 096 India Phone: +91 (0) 44 4209 6000 Fax: +91 (0) 44 4209 6060 Email: inquiryindia@cognizant.com © Copyright 2014, Cognizant. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written permission from Cognizant. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. All other trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners. About the Authors Mridul Shrimali is a Consulting Manager within Cognizant Business Consulting. He has worked for over 12 years within leading organizations on projects in the mortgage banking industry. Mridul can be reached at Mridul.Shrimali@cognizant.com. Avishek Bimal is a Senior Manager (Consulting) within Cognizant Business Consulting. He has worked for over 13 years in the banking and insurance space on projects spanning business and IT strategy, business process optimization and complex project execution. Avishek’s focus area is consumer finance. He can be reached at Avishek.Bimal@cognizant.com.