Home > Mortgages > Is BofA’s Foreclosure Review Really Independent?

Comments 0 Comments

Late last year, the country’s bank regulators launched a massive program to evaluate millions of foreclosure cases and compensate homeowners who fell victim to the banks’ flawed or illegal practices. Regulators dubbed it the “Independent Foreclosure Review” to emphasize that the banks would not be making key decisions about loans they had made or serviced.

But a raft of evidence — internal Bank of America memos and emails obtained by ProPublica, interviews with two bank staff members who have worked on the review, and little-noticed documents released late last year by a federal banking regulator — throw the independence of the review into serious doubt. Together, they indicate that Bank of America — the financial giant with the largest number of homeowners eligible for the program — is performing much of the work itself.

The ultimate decision as to whether and how much a homeowner will be compensated is not made by Bank of America, the evidence shows, but is based largely on work that the bank itself performs. One current employee called that crucial judgment “only a matter of double checking” the bank’s work.

Moreover, the bank gets a chance to challenge that key decision before it becomes final — an opportunity not given to homeowners.

Bank of America strongly objects to ProPublica’s analysis. It insists that the independence of the review has never been compromised. It maintains that its role “has been and remains gathering documents.” While it may discover “an error” in the course of that work, the bank says that an independent review conducted by an outside firm “is the sole and final basis” for determining whether homeowners have been harmed and how much compensation they merit.

A bank spokesman questioned ProPublica’s fairness, writing that “there are no facts to support your claim. Yet it seems you have made a decision to move forward with a story based on speculation and a preconceived notion of this issue.”

Bank of America’s regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), also maintained that the review was independent. After seeing the internal bank documents obtained by ProPublica, the OCC investigated, officials said. The OCC concluded that the documents, which include a memo sent by Bank of America executives to the hundreds of bank employees working on the Independent Foreclosure Review, are “incomplete and inaccurate,” said Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision Morris Morgan.

But the documents and interviews tell a sharply different story, and the stakes are high. The maximum cash compensation a homeowner can win through the foreclosure review is $125,000. Regulators set different amounts for the various errors and abuses homeowners endured, and those distinctions can result in widely differing payments — for instance $15,000 instead of $125,000 for homeowners who suffered very similar abuses.

ProPublica provided the internal Bank of America documents to Sen. Robert Menendez, who chaired a congressional hearing overseeing the foreclosure reviews. He said, “Congress was led to believe that the consultants would be analyzing homeowner foreclosures completely independently of the Wall Street banks, but these memos raise serious questions as to whether that’s true. If banks are trying to skew the results in their favor, regulators should stop that immediately.”

The senator also said that regulators “should ensure that homeowners have the same opportunities banks do to influence and contest the findings of the foreclosure reviews.”

The Document Trail

Federal regulators designed the program to work like this: Each of the big banks would hire an “independent consultant” to conduct reviews of the bank’s foreclosure cases. To ensure that these consultants really were independent, the regulators had to approve them. In September 2011, Bank of America hired Promontory Financial Group to be its independent consultant.

Two months later, the OCC released the contract between Bank of America and Promontory. The 118-page document received little notice, but it clearly spells out that Promontory will make its decision only after reviewing the bank’s own analysis of each homeowner’s claim.

When a homeowner sends in a complaint about the way Bank of America handled his or her foreclosure, the contract states, the bank “will process the complaint and provide the complaint, supporting resolution documentation, report of its findings, and proposed resolution to Promontory for independent review and decision concerning the complaint at issue.” Promontory, the contract continues, will then review the “complaints and claims, together with [Bank of America’s] recommended resolution and supporting documentation, and provide a decision on the complaint.”

Job ads posted in the fall of 2011 for “Foreclosure File Reviewer” positions at Bank of America reflect this scope of work. Among the job duties listed in one ad were “Complete Claim Review and perform Harm Evaluation according to Promontory/OCC definitions”; “If there was financial injury, determine the amount”; and “Perform final determination of Harm.” The ads were posted by staffing companies, but the bank confirmed to ProPublica it was the ultimate employer.

An internal bank document created to train employees on their role in the reviews also describes a “claim review” process at the bank. Employees would be running tests on the files to see if there was “harm done to the customer as a result of faulty servicing.”

Seven months after the review program had been underway, regulators released their plan for how homeowners would be compensated for abuses and errors. The bank’s role then changed, the internal documents say.

A June 2012 internal memo from Bank of America executives to its employees working on the review says the bank will perform all analyses except the final determination of how much, if any, compensation the homeowner deserved.

The OCC has specified eight tests to evaluate whether a homeowner was harmed by a bank, ranging from wrongly rejecting attempts to win loan modifications to charging bogus fees. Bank of America would perform seven of these tests, the memo states, but the final test — the decision of what compensation the homeowner would receive — would be performed by Promontory.

The bank executives wrote that moving the final test over to Promontory would make the entire process more efficient. Bank of America would be able to devote more resources to its seven tests and especially “the highly complex and time consuming” test of whether the homeowner was correctly reviewed for a loan modification. The division of labor — with Bank of America analyzing the files for problems and Promontory deciding on the appropriate compensation based on those problems — meant that homeowners who qualified for compensation would get their checks sooner, they wrote.

The executives hailed the move as bolstering the integrity of the reviews. The change “ensures that harm and financial injury determinations are made solely by the Independent Consultant, further underscoring our commitment to the independence of the [Independent Foreclosure Review].”

Employees who have worked on Bank of America’s foreclosure review told ProPublica the memo reflects what they’ve been hired to do: analyze homeowners’ claims, not merely fetch documents for Promontory to analyze. Following a procedure set out by Promontory, they perform tests to see if the bank properly handled the loan. Their work, Bank of America training materials and managers told them, is crucial to the final decision of how much if any compensation homeowners will receive.

As for Promontory’s role in making the final determination, a Bank of America employee said the widespread understanding among bank staff working on the review was that “it’s only a matter of double-checking.”

Bank of America appears to have far more employees working on the review than does Promontory. The bank’s employees number about 1,750 according to a spokesman, while Promontory’s contract for the review estimates it will need 469. Promontory declined to say how many staff are currently working on the review. Its contract estimated that roughly 290,000 files would need to be reviewed over about a year.

OCC deputy comptroller Morris said banks might have more staff for the reviews than the consultants because gathering all necessary documents can be time consuming.

The Bank of America memo also announced another change: the creation of a de facto appeals procedure for the bank. Designed in part “as a response” to Promontory deciding homeowner compensation, the bank would be adding an “Additional Information” unit, the executives wrote. The unit’s job, an employee said, is to respond when Promontory finds that a homeowner deserves compensation by producing any evidence that the bank didn’t commit the abuse or error.

In contrast, homeowners who file a complaint will have no opportunity to appeal the determination of whether they deserve compensation or not.

ProPublica asked Bank of America and Promontory to provide any additional internal documents that would shed more light on the roles played by the bank and Promontory. They declined to make any available.

The Bank Responds

Bank of America, Promontory, and the OCC all hotly disputed the idea that the bank’s analysis plays any role in the final, all-important compensation decision. But their accounts changed over time, and sometimes contradicted each other as to why and whether Bank of America was analyzing the files rather than merely gathering documents and handing them over to Promontory.

Promontory spokeswoman Debra Cope said Bank of America’s employees “are responsible only for the clerical work of assembling the documents and files.” Promontory employees analyze the material assembled by Bank of America “independently with no involvement from [Bank of America],” she said. “We perform all the tests.”

Initially, the OCC claimed Bank of America’s reviews were mainly only for its own use. Morgan, the OCC official, said Bank of America “is free to do its own internal analysis of foreclosure files, but that has nothing to do with the Independent Foreclosure Review.”

He went on to explain that the two main reasons a bank might run the tests on its own were to help it gather all necessary documents for the consultant’s review and “to learn from and address errors it may have made.”

Later, the OCC acknowledged that the results of the bank’s own reviews are in fact communicated to the independent consultant. “The independent consultant may review the servicer’s…findings, but will conduct its own review and draw its own conclusions,” said OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard.

Frahm, the Bank of America spokesman, said, the internal memo gave the wrong impression because it was intended only for bank employees. “Clearly, if this was something to be released externally, there would have been more context setting and even different word choice to ensure greater clarity.”

He strenuously objected to the idea that Bank of America employees conduct any analysis of the files at all. “Bank of America employees conduct no file reviews, they only gather documents necessary to stage files for Promontory,” he said.

He later acknowledged that as “part of this file staging process, the bank does inform Promontory if it appears an error was made,” but that Promontory “performs their own analysis on each file and Promontory’s analysis is the sole and final basis for outcomes.”

With regard to the bank having a chance to contest the consultant’s final determination of compensation, the Bank of America spokesman said the “Additional Information” unit’s job is “to ensure all facts and documents were considered in the finding of financial injury and provided to Promontory for consideration.”

The OCC said it was wrong to characterize the unit’s work as an appeals opportunity for the bank. “[A]ll servicers have some form of additional information teams responsible for locating and providing all necessary information and documents to independent consultants so they can effectively conduct their reviews,” said Hubbard. As for homeowners having no chance to contest the review’s conclusions, he said homeowners who don’t agree with the outcome of the reviews can still sue the bank, since they don’t waive any legal rights by accepting whatever compensation is offered.

Government’s Biggest Effort

Regulators created the Independent Foreclosure Review in the wake of the fall 2010 robo-signing scandal, in which it was revealed that banks had filed false affidavits in thousands of foreclosure cases. The foreclosure review would cover a range of bank errors and abuses, including botched handling of loan modifications and charging bogus fees. The program currently covers homeowners whose loans were serviced by fourteen U.S. banks and who were in foreclosure at any point during 2009 or 2010. At the end of 2011, about 4.4 million letters were mailed to potentially eligible homeowners inviting them to request a review.

The review is the government’s largest effort to compensate victims of the crisis. The separate $25 billion legal settlement reached earlier this year between the federal government, state attorneys general, and five big banks included about $1.5 billion in payments to homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure, but those payments, likely in the range of $1,500 to $2,000, will be the same for all homeowners who make a claim regardless of the circumstances.

In response to criticism that the payments were too small, federal officials pointed to the Independent Foreclosure Review as the best place for the victims of the worst abuses to be compensated. For example, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said at a February press conference announcing the settlement that the small payments were “always designed to sit in parallel” to the foreclosure review, where “a homeowner can come in, have their claims reviewed at the cost of the banks, and full compensation is made for the wrong at the cost of the banks.”

But relatively few homeowners have chosen to participate in the Independent Foreclosure Review. As of late September, about 240,000 claims had been sent in, a response rate of about 5.5 percent, according to the OCC. Consumer advocates and the Government Accountability Office have faulted the “Request for Review” letters that regulators sent to homeowners as being confusing and difficult to understand.

From the launch of the Independent Foreclosure Review, critics, other bank regulators among them, have questioned its independence. In a new book, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Sheila Bair writes that she doubted the consultants could truly be independent, because they relied on the banks for a large amount of business: “Why would they conduct a thorough review that could end up costing the banks a lot of money to compensate past victims?”

Promontory has worked previously for Bank of America, but the number and nature of engagements are secret. In the company’s contract with Bank of America for the foreclosure review, for instance, there’s a page and a half of redacted text under the heading, “Promontory’s Past Work with [Bank of America Corporation].” Promontory’s spokeswoman said she couldn’t comment on confidential client work. An article in The New York Times last year detailed one engagement: Promontory consulted on Bank of America’s turnaround plan to cut jobs and costs called “Project New BAC.”

Shown the internal Bank of America documents, Bair said they make it seem like her fears have been realized. “This raises new issues of whether the independent consultants are really doing the work or whether they’re relying on the banks to do it. It’s disheartening.”

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.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

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.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

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