| HUD M&M/Servicers Meeting - Denver, CO 8/20/04 |
| Wednesday, 25 August 2004 | |
AttendeesRepresenting HUD: Wanda Sampedro and Thomas Rose All New M&M Contractors: Link to M&M Contractors on HUD.gov Mortgage Servicer
Attendees: Field Service Company
Attendees: Introductions Vicki then offered her congratulations to all new M&M contractors. All of the mortgage service and mortgage field service companies are eager to form partnerships with the M&Ms, in order to for each party to offer the best of their respective ideas, best practices, successes, and communication systems. The goal is to be able to resolve any issues that arise through an interactive relationship, including an identified escalation process. Vicki also invited everyone at the meeting to participate in today?s session through asking questions. New M&M Contracts The EMS system (electronic internet management system) will improve communications with the industry, as well as with HUD. Virtually all information put into the system by the M&Ms will be on the Internet, which will allow HUD to do ?real time monitoring.? The EMS System is not currently operative, but will be effective and immediately available upon its completely running. HUD will be monitoring 100% of the interactions between M&Ms and industry through this system. HUD will also maintain a database that will track performance issues presented by mortgagees, which data will be shared by HUD at future meetings. In addition, HUD will track the condition of every property that comes into inventory, and will issue a letter to the servicer if the property is not ICC (even if no claim or request is filed). This letter will be for information purposes only; it will not result in a penalty to the mortgages. Nor will HUD send a copy to the field service company. HUD has also shortened certain timeline requirements, namely: (i) a 5-day turnaround time for items such as P&P guidance, title approvals, and extension requests; and (ii) a 30-day timeframe for claims reviews and acceptance of properties. The M&Ms? goal will be to handle all requests from the industry within these timeframes at least 90% of the time. Transition to New
M&Ms Caroline Reaves (First American Default Solutions) asked if HUD would be willing to consider some sort of an automatic 10 or 15 grace period around the October 1st transition date. Tom said that HUD would look into that. In response to a question, Tom Rose advised the mortgages to continue dealing with the ?old? M&M on any issue that is still ?in process.? Mortgagees will also be asked to deal with the new M&M on any pending requests. Other key transition dates include: (i) November 1, 2004, when new M&Ms will acquire all unsold inventory from old M&Ms; (ii) December 15, 2004, when old M&Ms will cease all operations. However, there are some protests that will hold up the complete transition to the new M&Ms. During this time, some areas of the country will continue with current M&Ms for a longer period of time, and will eventually transition to the new M&Ms. Further details on this subject will be provided in the Mortgagee Letter (below) New Mortgagee
Letter Caroline Reaves asked HUD when the industry representatives would get to see the M&M contracts. HUD stated that the contracts contain no direction to the servicers; thus, they should not really need to see it (comment was made that the information is most probably already available on Roberts e-mail). In addition, all of the relevant performance requirements are detailed in the contract that is viewable on HUD website. Caroline then asked how the new 5-day turnaround times will affect the appeal system. HUD stated that the appeal process will not necessarily change just because the 5-day requirement has changed; the servicer deadline is still 10 days for submitting an appeal. Nor will any change occur in the M&M responsibility to inspect the property within 24 hours after conveyance. Effective
Communications Caroline also acknowledged that detailed information ? on behalf of both the mortgagees and the M&Ms ? always helps each party?s communication efforts. The mortgagees ? who admittedly weren't including enough information in times past ? are now constantly trying to provide more information with all requests. Robert Klein (Safeguard Properties, Inc.) also reminded attendees that good communication enhances the relationship; it is what will make this work very well. For field service vendors, it is even more important to understand what the M&Ms are requiring and expecting. On those occasions where there is a disagreement, an escalation process is required, without having to go to a formal appeal. Addressing Field Service
Issues Robert Klein reminded M&Ms to address such problems with the servicers, who will no doubt address them with the field service vendors. Regardless, M&Ms are reminded that they will be provided with contact points within the field service companies to direct issues to them as well. Questions continued to focus on the need to address certain subcontractors who may be consistently falling short of expectations. One question asked what quality-control practices the field service providers have in place. Robert Klein responded by noting that field service vendors work for the servicers, who in turn expect certain performance standards. If not met, then the field service vendors are penalized monetarily. As a result, Safeguard Properties has extensive quality-control procedures in place, because it is in its best interest to do so. Paul Magaha from First American said that ?we have thousands of contractors,? so there are bound to be problems. However, First American has systems in place, like alternating contractors, sending inspectors back out to take pictures, etc. More prompt feedback regarding problems will help (e.g., the letters that come from HUD regarding problems with properties recently conveyed). Paul also noted Safeguard?s recently announced initiative to check on P&P work done by its contractors by sending out QC personnel to check on contractors performance. Training In November, during the upcoming Property Preservation Conference in Washington, DC, sessions can be devoted to putting this type of training and education together for the new M&Ms. If any of the M&Ms has any suggestions for topics to be addressed during this conference, they should please communicate them to Vicki Vidal at the MBA, whose contact information is: ph: (202) 557-2861 or e-mail: Vicki_Vidal@mbaa.org The servicers and field service vendors are willing to offer training opportunities ? jointly with HUD ? on areas of interest to the M&Ms. Wanda Sampedro of HUD expressed appreciation for this offer but said that it probably could not happen before the end of the year. Mick Hersh also reiterated Nickie Bigenho?s comments on training, including the servicers participating in various conferences and meetings within the industry. Industry Standards and Technology Caroline Reaves asked Tom Rose if all M&Ms would have standardized forms that will be available for servicers and field service companies. This is especially important given the number of M&Ms (24). Tom stated the forms will be standard, i.e., HUD-mandated forms, and that communication issues on the EMS system will be consistent, although perhaps not uniform. The HUD-mandated forms will be on EMS, which is really an M&M system; only very few segments of the system will be available to the servicers Caroline asked for assurances that there will be consistent interpretations of the Guidelines, and suggested that there be more group meetings, especially now that there are 24 contractors. Tom Rose agreed that there should be more meetings like this. For example, for issues like title approvals, HUD has clarifications in contract that will provide for no hold ups of title approval for minor defects. HUD has learned things over the last 5 years, including the need to be clearer in the M&M contract. Mike Hardiman (National Home Management Solutions) then noted that his company can handle faxes and emails and can let servicers into its system. But can the servicers consider allowing the M&Ms to communicate on their (the servicers?) systems? HUD is looking for the M&Ms to have all information, i.e., pictures, over-allowables, summaries, etc. However, in order to capture that data, the M&Ms? and the servicers? systems need to communicate better. Allan Martin (MCS) said that MCS interfaces with M&Ms through a mailbox interchange on its website. Alan also offered to make MCS? tool sets available for everyone, so that M&Ms can get that data. Alan offered to lead a small group to review this, and gave out his contact information: ph: (813) 874-2177 or email: allan.martin.@mcsnow.com. Mike Hardiman noted the upcoming demonstrations are going to indicate the availability of multiple systems to communicate. Mike then asked HUD if there is going to be one system in the future to capture all the P&P information. Tom Rose responded by referencing the soon-to-be-updated SAMS, the new central data system. Otherwise, as far as a comprehensive Internet based system for all participants to access and utilized, Tom said ?we?re simply not there yet.? HUD?s ultimate goal is to develop and implement such a system. Mike then directed his question to the servicers, asking if there is any way the industry can come up with a uniform system, web-based, to allow M&Ms to access and put information into their system, because it is acknowledged that everybody has a double-entry problem (at least). The general consensus was that no such undertaking is on the horizon, although it is acknowledged that one should be contemplated. Robert specifically agreed that multiple key entering into various systems is a problem, and that an effort should be made to ?get together to build a system.? Robert Klein then asked whether ? given all the technology developments and new systems ? an M&M bid approval still requires a physical signature. Tom Rose answered by noting that physical signature is still required on all bid approvals, but they can be scanned into the system and transmitted in that fashion. Software Demonstrations It includes a mortgagee registration page; enhanced security; communications to, from and within the system; modules for extensions of time and cost limits; the ability to edit profiles; categorization of line items into a specific areas of inquiry and history; etc. In addition, this is an independent system. When a property is entered, the system will conduct a query to see if information already exists on this property; everything gets burned to compact disc, and saved; and will always be available to the M&M and the servicer. This system will be provided to the servicers and, it?s use is optional on the servicers? part; but will be the preferred system to use. According to Jason, ?You?re going to get turnaround more quickly, i.e. we?ll beat the 5 day requirement hands down.? Steve noted that servicers are going to need a lot of lead time to implement this system, or any other software or communications program to be integrated. Robert Klein noted that the servicers will have to receive the information from the field service vendors, and then manually entered into this system for the data to be sent to the M&M. The system will not automatically put in the costs-to-date number; rather, that will have to be entered initially by the servicer. Thereafter, it will always be there. First Preston then demonstrated its Home Tracker system, including the Lender Center component. This is another system for the M&Ms to use, albeit available only in about 10 states, i.e., south and southwest states. The system includes a training module; task management; title information; extension request modules; post-conveyance information; P&P screen to view current and historical information; data entry; approve/disapprove requests; auto populate data back to servicer; electronic signature; etc. Additional features include an extension screen; automatic data entry; ability to include attachments/pictures; a section called ?case notes? where parties communicate regarding any given property; status reports; notification page, with history of all data previously transmitted; the ability to search inventory by loan number, case number, property address; etc. Steve Paton (Chase Mortgage) asked HUD to provide a list of all available systems, since the servicers will want gain all the efficiencies they apparently offer (including not having to use fax machines). Mike Hardiman then offered to share information relative to his company?s internal system (Aspen Grove) in order to explore the servicers? systems interacting and sharing data. Robert Klein informed the attendees
that the National Property Preservation Conference scheduled for
November 3-5, 2004, in Washington, DC. is an industry conference
for all segments of the industry and all of the M&Ms are
invited to attend. |
