• You could wait 7-10 years, at which point the items may fall off your report “naturally” via limitations.
• You can enter the complex “dispute process” yourself and attempt to deal with the credit agencies on your own.
• You can hire a professional credit score improvement firm to do the hard work for you.

The first option, waiting for years and years, is not much of an option at all.

None of us can afford to put our lives on hold until the credit bureaus decide to purge information from your record. Besides, most credit problems are the result of the bureaus’ mistakes — why should you have to wait for years because a faceless “someone” made an error on your report?

The second option, fixing it yourself, also has its problems.

On paper, the credit score improvement process is very simple. The Fair Credit Reporting Act outlines the specific channels and guidelines that govern the process and the credit bureaus themselves have internal credit score improvement mechanisms that allow consumers to challenge items on their own.

Unfortunately, the theoretical framework of the system and the actual practice of credit score improvement are very different. In a perfect world, consumers could count on the credit bureaus to participate in the process according to the letter of the law. They could expect that every investigation request would be answered. They could expect to receive prompt, first call resolution to their problems. They could expect to reach sympathetic and professional customer service representatives who would quickly and helpfully point them in the right direction.

As anyone who has ever attempted any form of credit clean-up will emphatically tell you, this is not the way the system operates. At best, attempting credit score improvement on your own can be time-consuming and frustrating. At worst, inexperienced credit correction can worsen the situation by resulting in the deletion of meaningless or sometimes positive credit items.

The third option is to use an experienced advocacy firm of professionals.

Our techniques are not only designed to replace the stress that consumers will run into when they attempt to the repair process on their own, but to also outperform other firms that may offer similar services. Listed below are the key ingredients that make up the winning formula.

One on One Communication

Credit problems are different for everyone. There is no cookie cutter approach that will yield optimal results. With that in mind, we put the greatest emphasis on one-on one consultation with each and every one of our clients.

When you call our Account Executives, you will be promptly connected with an expert credit consultant whose sole objective is to understand your needs and to tailor make a plan to address your problems. No other company offers the accessibility that we offer to our customers.

Immediate Action

When your financial life has been ambushed by unexpected credit problems, you need to get results fast. Credit Financial Planning, Inc. delivers the fastest results because we begin work immediately, and we’ll initiate the investigative process within 24 hours of sign-up.
Complete Credit Report Analysis

There are literally thousands of factors that affect a credit score.

Derogatory information like late payments, collections, liens, bankruptcies, charge-offs, repossessions, and foreclosures affect 35% of your report. We will aggressively work to remove items like these from your credit report.

However, we are the only company that seeks to improve the other 65% of your score as well.

Although bigger negative items tend to steal most of the spotlight in credit report repair, it is very possible for a combination of “smaller” issues to create a sizable impact on your score as well. Issues such as account mix, revolving balances, length of credit history, use of credit, and number of credit inquiries also affect your score and need to be addressed.

Our comprehensive and consultative approach ensures that no stone will go unturned as we seek to improve the state of your report.

Goal Oriented Mindset

We understand that a strong credit report is a means to some financial end. Our consultants will endeavor to find out the specific details of your financial goals to specifically tailor a plan aimed at reaching your goals as quickly as possible.

You don’t need perfect credit to qualify for most financial programs, but ultimately, just about everyone would like to have perfect credit. Long term, this is a possibility for everyone — however, most of us need results in the short term. With that in mind, we will prioritize your credit score improvement campaign to specifically get to your goals as quickly as possible.

Whether your short term goals are to finance a house, refinance an outstanding loan, get a car, or fix specific inaccuracies, we will ensure that YOUR credit score improvement campaign achieves those goals as quickly as possible.

Unmatched Service

The 3 major credit bureaus report on over 210 million consumers each.  A recent study showed that nearly 82% of all consumers are affected by harmful credit mistakes on their reports.

The old adage “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” has never been as true as with credit score improvement. With this in mind, our campaign takes the most aggressive stance when dealing with the credit bureaus on your behalf.

This was sent to me by a trusted affiliate who not only is an attorney, but also well versed in the loan process.  If you or someone you know is having issues getting a proper and timely response from a bank on a short sale or loan modification request or Foreclosure.Shortsale, my secretary has a friend who works with a bank. The friend advises that if you are not getting the proper attention or response from your bank in the loan modification or short sale process and it is a national bank, consider telling your contact at the bank that you are filing a complaint with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today, and then follow up by filing the complaint right away so the bank gets notice. It may change their attitude, as the OCC regulates national banks and national banks tend to take their inquiries seriously.

To confirm that the bank you are dealing with is a national bank and/or to file the complaint, go to http://occ.gov/topics/dispute-resolution/index-dispute-resolution.html. Click on the Consumer Complaints box on the left. Then  Customer Assistance Group information pops up. One option is the Online Customer Complaint Form. Click on it and when the page comes up scroll down to Helpful Hints. The first one directs you to a site to confirm if the lender is a national bank and there’s also a phone number you can call.

I hope this assists you or those you know where the bank isn’t responsive.

Gary H. Gale

Bankruptcy Attorney

Law Office of Gerald L. White- (916) 985-3330

Purpose

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is issuing this bulletin to national banks and federal savings associations (collectively, banks) to address many inquiries received from bankers and examiners on the accounting and reporting requirements for troubled debt restructurings (a TDR), especially related to loan renewals and extensions of substandard commercial loans.

The accounting standards for TDRs are set forth in Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Subtopic 310-40, “Receivables—Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors.” The following standards are discussed throughout this bulletin with the former references also listed here for your convenience.

Banks are reminded of the clarification issued by the FASB in Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011–02, “Receivables: A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring.”¹

The supplemental call report instructions² provide additional guidance on TDRs, including application of the ASU.

Background

Determining whether a loan renewal, extension, workout, or other modification constitutes a TDR is particularly challenging during times of economic stress. This is especially true for loans classified as substandard³ for which the criteria for placement in nonaccrual status had not been met at or before the time of modification. This bulletin focuses on factors to consider when evaluating loans for TDR designation and considerations for the appropriateness of accrual status and impairment analyses. The information contained in this bulletin does not constitute new policy but serves as a refresher of the relevant concepts for evaluating whether a loan modification represents a TDR and the appropriate related reporting for call report purposes.⁴

I. All substandard loans on accrual status that are renewed, extended, or otherwise modified are not automatically considered to be TDRs.

There is a strong presumption that a borrower is experiencing financial difficulties if his or her loan is graded substandard because by definition these loans have well-defined weaknesses. When renewing or modifying loans, including substandard, accruing loans, the bank must perform a documented analysis that illustrates whether the borrower is suffering financial difficulties and if the bank granted a concession that it would not otherwise consider as a result of the borrower’s financial difficulties. Documentation for renewals, extensions or modifications that are determined not to be TDRs should be robust given the presumption that a substandard borrower is experiencing financial difficulties.

• If a bank does not perform additional underwriting when it renews a substandard, accruing loan, there is no change in the loan pricing,⁵ or the pricing has not been adjusted before the renewal to be commensurate with the risk, and the borrower provides no additional consideration to compensate for the increased risk due to the borrower’s financial difficulties, the renewal is presumed to be a TDR.
• If, after additional underwriting, a bank modifies the terms of a substandard, accruing loan and takes additional measures at the time of renewal to reduce the risk associated with the loan (such as adding collateral, new guarantors with the ability and willingness to repay the loan balance, or other risk mitigants) or adjusts pricing to compensate for the additional risk, the renewal may not be a TDR. An analysis of all facts and circumstances associated with the loan must be completed to determine whether a renewal or extension is a TDR.

This position is consistent with the TDR guidance in ASU 2011–02. The following paragraphs from that update provide additional perspective.

310–40–15–14. A creditor may restructure a debt in exchange for additional collateral or guarantees from the debtor. In that situation, a creditor has granted a concession when the nature and amount of that additional collateral or guarantees received as part of a restructuring do not serve as adequate compensation for other terms of the restructuring. When additional guarantees are received in a restructuring, an entity shall evaluate both a guarantor’s ability and its willingness to pay the balance owed.

310–40–15–15. If a debtor does not otherwise have access to funds at a market rate for debt with similar risk characteristics as the restructured debt, the restructuring would be considered to be at a below-market rate, which may indicate that the creditor has granted a concession. In that situation, a creditor shall consider all aspects of the restructuring in determining whether it has granted a concession.

II. Renewals, extensions, or modifications deemed to be TDRs must be evaluated for the appropriate impairment measurement under ASC Subtopic 310–10 to ensure that the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL) and accrual status are appropriate and consistent with call report instructions.

Accrual Status

When a loan undergoes a TDR, the determination of the loan’s accrual versus nonaccrual status following the modification depends on several factors. As with the risk rating process, the accrual status decision for such a loan is a separate and distinct process from the loan’s TDR analysis and determination. In accordance with call report instructions, once the loan is restructured, a current, well-documented credit evaluation of the borrower’s financial condition and prospects for repayment must be performed to assess the likelihood that all principal and interest payments required under the terms of the modified agreement will be collected in full. Bank management should consider the following in determining the accrual status of restructured loans:

• If the loan was appropriately on accrual status prior to the restructuring, the borrower has demonstrated performance under the previous terms, and the bank’s credit evaluation shows the borrower’s capacity to continue to perform under the restructured terms (both principal and interest payments), it is likely that the appropriate conclusion is for the loan to remain on accrual at the time of the restructuring. This evaluation must include consideration of the borrower’s sustained historical repayment performance for a reasonable period prior to the date on which the loan was restructured. A sustained period of repayment performance generally would be a minimum of six months and would involve payments of cash or cash equivalents.
• If the loan was on nonaccrual status before the restructuring, but the bank’s credit evaluation shows the borrower’s capacity to meet the restructured terms, the loan would likely remain as nonaccrual until the borrower has demonstrated a reasonable period of sustained repayment performance. As noted above, this period generally would be at least six months (thereby providing reasonable assurance as to the ultimate collection of principal and interest in full under the modified terms). Sustained performance before the restructuring may be taken into account.

Impairment Measurement

Loans that have undergone “troubled debt restructurings” are evaluated for impairment under ASC Subtopic 310–10. This includes loans that, before their restructuring, were not individually evaluated under ASC Subtopic 310–10 but were part of a pool evaluated in accordance with ASC Subtopic 450–20 (formerly known as FASB Statement No. 5). Although these loans will likely have an associated ALLL after their restructuring, this does not mean that all TDRs must be placed on or remain on nonaccrual. If a TDR meets the guidance above, it is eligible for accrual status either at the time of the restructuring or at a later date. When a loan not previously considered individually impaired is restructured and determined to be a TDR—absent a partial charge-off⁶ for the portion of the loan identified as uncollectible at the time of the restructuring—it generally is not appropriate for the impairment estimate on the loan to decline as a result of the change from the impairment measurement method prescribed in ASC Subtopic 450–20 to the methods prescribed in ASC Subtopic 310–10.

Following ASC Subtopic 310–10 and the call report instructions, if a loan that has undergone a TDR is not collateral dependent, impairment should be measured based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate (i.e., the present value method) or the loan’s observable market price. For call report purposes, if the loan is collateral dependent (repayment of the loan is expected to be provided solely by the underlying collateral and there are no other available and reliable sources of repayment), impairment should be measured using the fair value of the collateral less costs to sell if those costs are expected to reduce the cash flows available to repay or otherwise satisfy the loan.

Impairment measurement for an individual TDR under ASC Subtopic 310–10 should consider all available information reflecting past events, including the charge-off history for similar types of loans included in the bank’s ASC Subtopic 450–20 impairment estimate. Additionally, current conditions should be considered when the bank is developing the impairment estimate using the measurement method appropriate to the individual TDR (present value of expected future cash flows, fair value of collateral or observable market price). All available information would take into account existing “environmental” factors (e.g., industry, geographical, economic, and political factors) that are relevant and affect the collectability of the loan.

When calculating expected future cash flows for individual TDRs, an institution should consider whether it would be appropriate to use default and prepayment assumptions that would be relevant to an aggregated pool of loans with similar risk characteristics when individual cash flows are difficult to forecast. The objective of such a calculation is to provide a best estimate—at the individual loan level—of the expected cash flows. The bank’s calculation should reflect that uncertainty about the timing and amount of cash flows of a TDR (due to the financial difficulties of the borrower) continues to exist following the modification.

Consistent with ASC Subtopic 310–10, TDRs may be aggregated and measured for impairment with other impaired loans that share common risk characteristics by using historical statistics, such as average recovery period and average amount recovered, along with a composite effective interest rate. However, the outcome of such an aggregation approach must be consistent with and should result in an impairment measurement similar to that which is prescribed in ASC Subtopic 310–10 for loans that are individually considered impaired.

III. Once a TDR, always a TDR?

Generally, until a loan that is a TDR is paid in full or otherwise settled, sold, or charged off, the loan must be reported as a TDR. However, the reporting (disclosure) of a loan as a TDR is a separate analysis from whether the modification must continue to be evaluated under ASC Subtopic 310-10.

A loan that is a TDR that has an interest rate consistent with market rates at the time of restructuring (for example, the A note in an A/B note split structure) and is in compliance with its modified terms need not continue to be reported (disclosed) as a TDR in calendar years after the year in which the restructuring took place, in accordance with ASC Subtopics 310–10–50–15(a) and 310–10–50–15(c). To be considered in compliance with its modified terms for call report purposes, a loan that is a TDR must be in accrual status and must be current or less than 30 days past due under the modified repayment terms. While loans meeting these conditions need not continue to be disclosed as TDRs in the call report in years after restructuring, the loans will continue to be deemed an impaired loan and must be evaluated under ASC Subtopic 310–10, as discussed above.

Additional Considerations

Banks should clearly document their policies and procedures for identifying and reviewing potential TDRs. For example, the procedures should address the process for flagging a modified or renewed loan for review, considering the factors to assess TDR status, and designating responsibility for the TDR decision. Banks should also clearly document and support the facts and circumstances analyzed for each modification or renewal and the conclusion reached.

The “Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Workouts” and the Bank Accounting Advisory Series include guidance about TDRs that may be helpful in considering whether a loan modification or renewal is a TDR.⁷

IV. How will loans designated as TDRs be analyzed? 

A common question from examiners, bankers, and other users of financial statements and call reports is how to evaluate the credit risk of loan modifications that are determined to be TDRs (i.e., do all TDRs have higher credit risk than non-TDR loans?) The answer may vary, so it is important not to rely on the TDR designation as the best indicator of the degree of credit risk in a loan. Consideration should be given to the TDR disclosures in the call report, which distinguish between those TDRs on accrual status and in compliance with their modified terms (included in Schedule RC–C, Part I, Memorandum Item 1) and those TDRs on nonaccrual and/or not in compliance with their modified terms (Schedule RC–N, Memorandum Item 1). This latter memorandum item is a subset of the past-due and nonaccrual loans reported in the body of Schedule RC–N and should not be double counted when analyzing the data in this schedule.

Additional Information If you have questions, please contact your supervisory office, the Office of the Chief Accountant at (202) 874-5180, or the Credit and Market Risk Department at (202) 874-4660.

Kathy Murphy
Chief Accountant

Darrin Benhart
Deputy Comptroller, Credit & Market Risk

# # #

to receive OCC press releases and issuances by e-mail.OCC.gov

| Helpwithmybank.gov | BankNet.gov | Feedback

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-foreclosure-terms-20120313,0,3388434.story

Our general advice is to request a review if you believe you suffered financial harm because your servicer wrongfully foreclosed on you or wrongfully initiated or continued foreclosure proceedings, or if the servicer otherwise wrongfully cost you significant expense, but to understand that you may get little, if anything, out of the review process. We advise requesting a review so that your complaint will be counted in the totals to show just how widespread these problems are. There are, however, some drawbacks and risks to the process that you should be aware of, as discussed below

Background

The “Independent Foreclosure Review” (IFR) is part of the settlement of a series of 2011 enforcement actions brought by two federal agencies against several of the largest loan servicers in the U.S. The settlement requires these loan servicers to hire outside consultants to review the foreclosures that took place or were initiated in 2009 and 2010 to determine if homeowners suffered financial injury as a result of the servicers’ foreclosure practices.

The loan servicers subject to the settlement are: America’s Servicing Company, Aurora Loan Services, Bank of America, Beneficial, Chase, Citibank, CitiFinancial, Citi Mortgage, Country-Wide, EMC, EverBank/Everhome, Freedom Financial, GMAC Mortgage, HFC, HSBC, IndyMac Mortgage Services, MetLife Bank, National City, PNC Mortgage, Sovereign Bank, Sun-Trust Mortgage, U.S. Bank, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and Wells Fargo.

If your loan servicer is not on this list, you are not eligible for a review under this program.

Purpose and Potential Remedies

The IFR is supposed to determine whether individual homeowners suffered financial injury due to errors or other problems during their home foreclosure process. Situations that may have led to financial injury include, but are not limited to:

• The mortgage balance reported by the loan servicer at the time of the foreclosure was more than you actually owed.
• Fees charged or mortgage payments were inaccurately calculated, processed or applied.
• You had a loan modification agreement in place, but the foreclosure sale still happened.
• The foreclosure action occurred while you were protected by bankruptcy.
• A foreclosure proceeded on a military member in violation of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protections.

The consultants reviewing servicer files are supposed to determine whether individual homeowners should receive compensation or other remedies. As of January 6, 2012, the federal agencies in charge of the program had not decided what amounts of compensation homeowners might receive or what other remedies might be offered for various types of harm.

Drawbacks and Potential Risks

Consumer advocates have criticized several aspects of the IFR program. For example, the National Consumer Law Center recently testified about the program’s flaws before Congress. Detailed information is included in recent congressional testimony athttp://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/foreclosure_mortgage/mortgage_servicing/testimony-occ-cohen.pdf.

In addition to uncertainty about what homeowners might actually get out of the process, some specific concerns about the IFR program include the following:

Tips for Requesting a Review

• Read the request form carefully and consult with a housing counselor or other trusted advisor if you need help understanding or completing the form. Free basic assistance is available at (888) 952-9105 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. (ET) and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (ET).
• Be thorough. Make sure to include all injuries and damages you believe you suffered as a result of the servicer’s foreclosure practices whether or not they are listed on the form, including problems with the loan modification review process. You will only receive a comprehensive review of injuries you identify in the request form. Also, if you don’t identify a certain type of damages, you could have difficulty trying to collect those damages in a lawsuit or other claim in the future.
• Include copies (not your originals) of supporting documentation that demonstrates the financial harm you describe. If you previously worked with a housing counselor, you may be able to obtain a copy of the closed file from that agency.
• If you believe you are eligible and have not received a request form, you can request one from (888) 952-9105.
• You should receive a letter acknowledging your request soon after you submit it, but the review process may take several months to complete.
• The deadline to submit a request form and supporting documentation is July 31, 2012.

Beware of IFR Scams

If anyone offers to help you request an IFR in exchange for money, be extremely cautious. There is no guarantee you will receive anything at all as a result of the review process, so no one can guarantee that you’ll receive compensation or that they can increase your chances of getting compensation. Free basic assistance is available at (888) 952-9105. You can also contact a HUD-certified housing counseling agency. The review itself is free of charge, so you should not pay anyone who offers to perform an IFR for you.

For additional information and answers to basic questions about the review process, visit www.IndependentForeclosureReview.com andwww.occ.gov/independentforeclosurereview.

The bureau announced a proposed rule Thursday that would make the largest debt collection agencies and credit reporting agencies – including Experian, Equifax and TransUnion – subject to the same oversight process that banks are.

It’s the agency’s most ambitious proposal since its creation under the controversial 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

“Consumer financial products and services have become more complex over the years,” said Richard Cordray, the bureau’s director. “This oversight would help restore confidence that the federal government is standing beside the American consumer.”

Under the proposal, about 175 debt collection agencies that each hold more than $10 million in annual collection receipts would be subject to bureau oversight. They account for 63 percent of annual debt collection receipts.

About 30 credit reporting agencies with more than $7 million in annual receipts from reporting activities – accounting for nearly 94 percent of industry revenue – would face supervision under the proposal.

Since the Great Recession hit in 2007, federal consumer lawsuits filed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act have more than doubled and complaints about problem collectors have skyrocketed. Only identity theft generated more complaints than the 144,000 about debt collectors fielded by the Federal Trade Commission in 2010.

A record 11,811 federal consumer lawsuits were filed last year under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, up from 4,372 in 2007.

The lawsuits and complaints about bill collectors allege illegal contacts with consumers, overly aggressive collection agents and mistaken identities of debtors.

Mark Schiffman, public affairs director for ACA International, the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals, said the group would use the rule’s 60-day comment period to review the bureau’s oversight plan before commenting publicly. He said industry leaders wanted to see how their companies would be affected and make sure the guidelines weren’t “overly burdensome.”

Schiffman said the increase in complaints and lawsuits against debt collectors reflected not only more consumers facing financial hardship in the economic downturn, but also a small group of attorneys who filed numerous actions.

“It’s not an assumption, it’s a fact,” Schiffman said, adding that some attorneys see the consumer lawsuits as a “cash cow.”

An estimated 36 billion individual credit reports are updated each year and 3 billion new reports are issued, according to the Consumer Data Industry Association.

The three largest agencies compile financial information on 200 million Americans. Their reports are used to determine creditworthiness and screen job applicants.

For years, consumers have complained about inaccuracies on their credit reports and difficulty in getting them corrected.

An estimated 79 percent of consumer credit reports have errors such as missing information, false delinquencies and outdated account balances, said Tanya Clay House, director of public policy at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Gerry Tschopp, a spokesman for Experian, said in an email that his firm had been working with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since its creation and would meet “consumers’ and clients’ needs within regulatory guidelines, while continuing to move our business forward.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/17/4270668/debt-collectors-credit-bureaus.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy
and at tune into this website for more info.