Home > Mortgages > Staffing the Booming Foreclosure Business

Comments 0 Comments
Advertiser Disclosure


Meet Dave.  He’s a homeowner in Sarasota, Florida who recently contacted Credit.com looking for help.

Dave can’t afford his mortgage payments and he’s been damned near killing himself to get a modification with Bank of America for almost two years. He’s submitted his paperwork five times. He’s been assured several times by several individual Bank of America employees that they’d personally see to it that his modification is properly handled. But every time he calls to follow up, the employee with whom he last spoke has vanished, leaving him to start the process all over again with someone new. Meanwhile, the proposed modification payment has doubled, his credit has been destroyed, and now he’s at the end of his rope. He’s considering the possibility of letting his home go into foreclosure, whatever the consequences.

This story is particularly galling given the recent statement from Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive, Brian Moynihan. Mr. Moynihan revealed to audience members at a financial services conference that Bank of American recently built up its team of foreclosure processors to 50,000 people, up from 30,000. I wonder if anyone ever suggested to Mr. Moynihan that we might all be better served if those 20,000 new employees were hired to process modifications instead of foreclosures?

Not to be the Master of the restating of the obvious, but I am not convinced that banks have much of an interest in modifying mortgages. The Internet is littered with comments from despondent homeowners—all feeling like residential roadkill—who don’t understand why BofA is so intent on throwing people out of, as opposed to keeping people in, their homes. In addition to countless stories of BofA mortgage modifications gone horribly awry, we’ve also read stories about short sales falling through because the bank opted to play the foreclosure card at the last minute.

[Related: Why the Home Loan Mod Program is Failing]

The reason, predictably, is money.

Bank of America services some two trillion dollars in mortgages. One would think they would have an incentive to keep homes out of foreclosure where they may sit vacant for months, if not years, in the face of today’s rapidly escalating inventory. Not to mention the fact that the foreclosed properties would also require some degree of upkeep, risk exposure to vandalism and finally sell, in all probability, for far less than the amount owed. But the way the system currently works, successful modifications are typically the least profitable option for loan servicers.

[Related: HAMP Fails to Save Homeowners from Foreclosure]

A recent Congressional Oversight Panel report confirmed what advocacy groups have been saying all along:

“Because the foreclosure process allows lenders to recover only a small fraction of the value of a mortgage loan, lenders should generally prefer to avoid foreclosure by voluntarily reducing a borrower’s monthly payments to affordable levels.  (Yet), although lenders suffer significant losses in foreclosures, servicers can turn a substantial profit from foreclosure-related fees. As such, it may be in the servicer’s interest to move a delinquent loan to foreclosure as soon as possible.”

Modifications are only profitable to servicers if they are dragged out, allowing the servicer to add additional fees. When a home is foreclosed upon, then, this same servicer will often be first in line to collect on numerous fees (including junk fees reminiscent of the subprime mortgage heyday) that have accrued during the process.

Either way, the more misery inflicted upon the homeowner, the better for the bank.

There are also more practical concerns here. How does a bank quickly train some 20,000 new employees to help handle the most sensitive and difficult of financial transactions? Let’s hope these new BofA family members will be hired for more than their limber wrists —witness the recent robo-signing scandals. Then, again, there is no reason to imagine their performance will be judged by their “success” in helping consumers obtain successful modifications because it would appear that servicers and homeowners have radically different definitions of that word.

About the only folks who may well have any real upside in this unfolding property passion play are the guys who have underwriting experience. So, to all of the unemployed mortgage brokers out there – the ones who fueled the bubble by pushing “creative” and ill-conceived loan products: Bank of America might have a job for you.

Image by seiuhealthcare775nw, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team