10-K 1 a2019123110k.htm 10-K Document
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
 
x
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019
OR
o
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
For the transition period from: ____________________ to ____________________
Commission File No. 1-13219
OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Florida
 
65-0039856
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100
West Palm Beach, Florida
 
33409
(Address of principal executive office)
 
(Zip Code)
(561) 682-8000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
Trading Symbol(s)
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.01 Par Value
OCN
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (g) of the Act: Not applicable.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No x
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:
 
Large Accelerated filer
o
 
 
Accelerated filer
x
 
Non-accelerated filer
o
 
 
Smaller reporting company
o
 
 
 
 
 
Emerging growth company
o
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act) Yes o No x
Aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity of the registrant held by nonaffiliates as of June 30, 2019: $275,549,706
Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of February 21, 2020: 134,948,008 shares
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: Portions of our definitive Proxy Statement with respect to our Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which is currently scheduled to be held on May 27, 2020, are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10 - 14.




OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
2019 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
 
 
PAGE
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


1


FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this report, including, statements regarding our financial position, business strategy and other plans and objectives for our future operations, are forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements may be identified by a reference to a future period or by the use of forward-looking terminology. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as “expect”, “believe”, “foresee”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “estimate”, “goal”, “strategy”, “plan” “target” and “project” or conditional verbs such as “will”, “may”, “should”, “could” or “would” or the negative of these terms, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements by their nature address matters that are, to different degrees, uncertain. Our business has been undergoing substantial change, which has magnified such uncertainties. Readers should bear these factors in mind when considering forward-looking statements and should not place undue reliance on such statements. Forward-looking statements involve a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by such statements. In the past, actual results have differed from those suggested by forward-looking statements and this may happen again. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ include, but are not limited to, the risks discussed in “Risk Factors” and the following:
•
uncertainty related to the adequacy of our financial resources, including our sources of liquidity and ability to fund, sell and recover advances, originate, sell and securitize forward and reverse mortgage loans, fund forward and reverse mortgage loan buyouts, repay, renew and extend borrowings and borrow additional amounts as and when required;
•
uncertainty related to our ability to execute on our cost re-engineering initiatives and take the other actions we believe are necessary for us to improve our financial performance;
•
uncertainty related to our ability to acquire mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) or other assets or businesses at adequate risk-adjusted returns, including our ability to allocate adequate capital for such investments, negotiate and execute purchase documentation and satisfy closing conditions so as to consummate such acquisitions;
•
uncertainty related to our ability to grow our lending business and increase our lending volumes in a competitive market and uncertain interest rate environment;
•
uncertainty related to our long-term relationship and remaining agreements with New Residential Investment Corp. (NRZ), our largest servicing client;
•
our ability to execute an orderly and timely transfer of responsibilities in connection with the termination by NRZ of our legacy PHH Mortgage Corporation (PMC) subservicing agreement;
•
the reactions of regulators, lenders and other contractual counterparties, rating agencies, stockholders and other stakeholders to the announcement of the termination of the PMC subservicing agreement;
•
uncertainty related to claims, litigation, cease and desist orders and investigations brought by government agencies and private parties regarding our servicing, foreclosure, modification, origination and other practices, including uncertainty related to past, present or future investigations, litigation, cease and desist orders and settlements with state regulators, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), State Attorneys General, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Justice or the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and actions brought under the False Claims Act regarding incentive and other payments made by governmental entities;
•
adverse effects on our business as a result of regulatory investigations, litigation, cease and desist orders or settlements;
•
reactions to the announcement of such investigations, litigation, cease and desist orders or settlements by key counterparties, including lenders, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae);
•
our ability to comply with the terms of our settlements with regulatory agencies and the costs of doing so;
•
increased regulatory scrutiny and media attention;
•
any adverse developments in existing legal proceedings or the initiation of new legal proceedings;
•
our ability to effectively manage our regulatory and contractual compliance obligations;
•
our ability to interpret correctly and comply with liquidity, net worth and other financial and other requirements of regulators, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, as well as those set forth in our debt and other agreements;
•
our ability to comply with our servicing agreements, including our ability to comply with our agreements with, and the requirements of, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae and maintain our seller/servicer and other statuses with them;
•
our servicer and credit ratings as well as other actions from various rating agencies, including the impact of prior or future downgrades of our servicer and credit ratings;
•
failure of our information technology or other security systems or breach of our privacy protections, including any failure to protect customers’ data;

2


•
uncertainty related to the ability of our technology vendors to adequately maintain and support our systems, including our servicing systems, loan originations and financial reporting systems;
•
our ability to identify and address any issues arising in connection with the transfer of loans to the Black Knight Financial Services, Inc. (Black Knight) LoanSphere MSP® servicing system (Black Knight MSP) without incurring significant cost or disruption to our operations;
•
the loss of the services of our senior managers and key employees;
•
uncertainty related to the actions of loan owners and guarantors, including mortgage-backed securities investors, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the GSEs), Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) and trustees regarding loan put-backs, penalties and legal actions;
•
uncertainty related to the GSEs substantially curtailing or ceasing to purchase our conforming loan originations or the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) of the HUD or Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ceasing to provide insurance;
•
uncertainty related to our ability to continue to collect certain expedited payment or convenience fees and potential liability for charging such fees;
•
uncertainty related to our reserves, valuations, provisions and anticipated realization of assets;
•
uncertainty related to the ability of third-party obligors and financing sources to fund servicing advances on a timely basis on loans serviced by us;
•
volatility in our stock price;
•
the characteristics of our servicing portfolio, including prepayment speeds along with delinquency and advance rates;
•
our ability to successfully modify delinquent loans, manage foreclosures and sell foreclosed properties;
•
uncertainty related to the processes for judicial and non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, including potential additional costs or delays or moratoria in the future or claims pertaining to past practices;
•
our ability to adequately manage and maintain real estate owned (REO) properties and vacant properties collateralizing loans that we service;
•
uncertainty related to legislation, regulations, regulatory agency actions, regulatory examinations, government programs and policies, industry initiatives and evolving best servicing practices;
•
our ability to realize anticipated future gains from future draws on existing loans in our reverse mortgage portfolio;
•
our ability to effectively manage our exposure to interest rate changes and foreign exchange fluctuations;
•
our ability to effectively transform our operations in response to changing business needs, including our ability to do so without unanticipated adverse tax consequences;
•
uncertainty regarding regulatory restrictions on our ability to repurchase our own stock and limitations under our debt agreements on stock repurchases;
•
uncertainty related to the political or economic stability of the United States and of the foreign countries in which we have operations; and
•
our ability to maintain positive relationships with our large shareholders and obtain their support for management proposals requiring shareholder approval.
Further information on the risks specific to our business is detailed within this report, including under “Risk Factors.” Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they were made and we disclaim any obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements whether because of new information, future events or otherwise.



3


PART I
ITEM 1.
BUSINESS
When we use the terms “Ocwen,” “OCN,” “we,” “us” and “our,” we are referring to Ocwen Financial Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.
OVERVIEW
We are a financial services company that services and originates mortgage loans. We have a strong track record of success as a leader in the servicing industry in foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation that helps homeowners stay in their homes and improves financial outcomes for mortgage loan investors. This long-standing core competency will continue to be a guiding principle as we seek to grow our business and improve our financial performance.
We are headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with offices in the U.S. (West Palm Beach, FL, Mount Laurel, NJ, Rancho Cordova, CA), in the United States Virgin Islands (St. Croix)), and operations in India and the Philippines. At December 31, 2019, approximately 72% of our workforce is located outside the U.S. Ocwen Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation organized in February 1988. With our predecessors, we have been servicing residential mortgage loans since 1988. In late 2018 and throughout 2019, we successfully completed our acquisition and integration of PHH Corporation (PHH). We have been originating forward mortgage loans since 2012 and reverse mortgage loans since 2013. We currently provide solutions through our primary operating, wholly-owned subsidiaries, PHH Mortgage Corporation (PMC) and Liberty Home Equity Solutions, Inc. (Liberty).
Our priority is to return to sustainable profitability in the shortest timeframe possible within an appropriate risk and compliance environment. To do so, we believe we must execute on the following key initiatives. First, we must manage the size of our servicing portfolio through expanding our lending business and acquisitions of mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) that are prudent and well-executed with appropriate financial return targets. Second, we must re-engineer our cost structure to go beyond eliminating redundant costs through the integration process and establish continuous cost improvement as a core strength. Our continuous cost improvement efforts are focused on leveraging our single servicing platform and technology, optimizing strategic sourcing and off-shore utilization, lean process design, automation and other technology-enabled productivity enhancements. Third, we must manage our balance sheet to ensure adequate liquidity and provide a solid platform for financing our ongoing business needs and executing on our other key business initiatives. Finally, we must fulfill our regulatory commitments and resolve our remaining legal and regulatory matters on satisfactory terms.
BUSINESS MODEL AND SEGMENTS
Ocwen’s business model is designed to optimize our value creation for our primary stakeholders, improve our returns and effectively allocate our resources. Over the past twelve months, in addition to our PHH integration efforts, we have continued to adjust and transform our business model to generate growth through diversification and drive operational efficiencies. Our core competencies revolve around our servicing business and we aggressively pursue growth of our servicing portfolio through origination and acquisitions of servicing volume from multiple sources.
Our servicing portfolio is comprised of three components with different economics - our owned MSRs, our subservicing portfolio, and the NRZ servicing portfolio. We invest our capital to fund acquisitions and originations of our owned MSRs and servicing advances, for which we establish a targeted return on investment. Our net return includes servicing revenue net of servicing costs, less MSR portfolio runoff and other fair value changes, and less our MSR and advance funding cost. Our subservicing portfolio generates a relatively more stable source of revenue with lower subservicing fees but without any significant capital utilization and funding of advances. Our NRZ servicing portfolio has effectively been a subservicing relationship - See New Residential Investment Corp. Relationship. We target a balanced mix of our portfolio between servicing and subservicing. Our servicing operations and customer interactions do not differentiate whether loans are serviced or subserviced.
Our growth strategy is built on our relationships with borrowers, lenders and other market participants. We develop these relationships to grow our existing owned MSR portfolio, or develop new subservicing arrangements. We acquire MSRs through bulk portfolio purchases in the open market or through flow purchase agreements with our network of mortgage companies and financial institutions, or through participation in the Agency co-issue programs. In order to diversify our sources of servicing and reduce our reliance on others, we have been developing our origination of MSRs through different channels, including our portfolio recapture channel, retail, wholesale and correspondent lending. In 2019, bulk acquisitions represented the largest volume of MSR additions.



4


The chart below presents our current business model:
slide15g.jpg
We report our activities in three segments, with Servicing and Lending being our primary segments. Our other business activities that are currently individually insignificant are included in the Corporate Items and Other segment. Our business segments reflect the internal reporting that we use to evaluate operating performance of services and to assess the allocation of our resources. The historical financial information of our segments is presented in our financial statements in Note 23 — Business Segment Reporting and discussed in the individual business operations sections of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Servicing
Our Servicing business is primarily comprised of our core residential mortgage servicing business that currently accounts for most of our total revenues, and we also have a small commercial mortgage servicing business. Our servicing clients include some of the largest financial institutions in the U.S., including the GSEs, Ginnie Mae, NRZ and non-Agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts. As of December 31, 2019, our residential servicing portfolio consisted of 1,419,943 loans with an unpaid principal balance (UPB) of $212.4 billion.
Servicing involves the collection of principal and interest payments from borrowers, the administration of tax and insurance escrow accounts, the collection of insurance claims, the management of loans that are delinquent or in foreclosure or bankruptcy, including making servicing advances, evaluating loans for modification and other loss mitigation activities and, if necessary, foreclosure referrals and the sale of the underlying mortgaged property following foreclosure (REO) on behalf of mortgage loan investors or other servicers. Master servicing involves the collection of payments from servicers and the distribution of funds to investors in mortgage and asset-backed securities and whole loan packages. We earn contractual monthly servicing fees (which are typically payable as a percentage of UPB) pursuant to servicing agreements as well as other ancillary fees relating to our servicing activities such as late fees and, in certain circumstances, REO referral commissions.
We own MSRs outright, where we typically receive all the servicing economics, and we subservice on behalf of other institutions that own the MSRs or Rights to MSRs, in which case we typically earn a smaller fee for performing the subservicing activities. Special servicing is a form of subservicing where we generally manage only delinquent loans on behalf of a loan owner. We typically earn subservicing and special servicing fees either as a percentage of UPB or on a per loan basis.
Servicing advances are an important component of our business and are amounts that we, as servicer, are required to advance to, or on behalf of, our servicing clients if we do not receive such amounts from borrowers. These amounts include principal and interest payments, property taxes and insurance premiums and amounts to maintain, repair and market real estate properties on behalf of our servicing clients. Most of our advances have the highest reimbursement priority such that we are entitled to repayment of the advances from the loan or property liquidation proceeds before most other claims on these proceeds. The costs incurred in meeting advancing obligations consist principally of the interest expense incurred in financing

5


the advance receivables and the costs of arranging such financing. Under subservicing agreements, Ocwen is promptly reimbursed by the owners of the MSRs who generally finance the advances and incur the associated financing cost.
Reducing delinquencies is important to our business because it enables us to recover advances and recognize additional ancillary income, such as late fees, which we do not recognize on delinquent loans until they are brought current. Performing loans also require less work and thus are generally less costly to service. While increasing borrower participation in loan modification programs is a critical component of our ability to reduce delinquencies, borrower compliance with those modifications is also an important factor.
We report our MSR purchases through flow, agency co-issue programs, and bulk sources in our Servicing segment. We initially recognize our MSR origination with the associated gain in our Lending business, and subsequently transfer the MSR to our Servicing segment. Our Servicing segment reflects all subsequent performance associated with the MSR, including funding cost, run-off and other fair value changes.
Our servicing portfolio naturally decreases over time as homeowners make regularly scheduled mortgage payments, prepay loans prior to maturity, refinance with a mortgage loan not serviced by us or involuntarily liquidate through foreclosure or other liquidation process. In addition, existing clients may determine to terminate their servicing and subservicing arrangements with us and transfer the servicing to others. Therefore, our ability to grow the size of our servicing portfolio depends on our ability to acquire the right to service or subservice additional mortgage loans at a rate that exceeds portfolio runoff and any client terminations. We are focused on profitably replenishing and growing our servicing and subservicing portfolios through a variety of sources, including our lending business channels (retail/recapture, wholesale and correspondent), forward flow MSR arrangements with certain business partners, GSE cash window programs, additional subservicing business arrangements, and bulk MSR acquisitions.
Lending
In 2019, our Lending business originated or purchased forward and reverse mortgage loans with a UPB of $1.2 billion and $729.4 million, respectively. These loans were acquired through three primary channels: directly with mortgage customers (retail), through correspondent lender relationships (correspondent) and through broker relationships (wholesale). Per-loan margins vary by channel, with correspondent typically being the lowest margin and retail the highest. We exited the forward lending correspondent and wholesale channels in 2017 for strategic purposes, and re-entered the correspondent channel in the second quarter of 2019. Our forward lending business is also focused on portfolio recapture (i.e., refinancing loans in our servicing portfolio).
Our forward mortgage loans are conventional (conforming to the underwriting standards of the GSEs, collectively Agency loans) and government-insured (insured by the FHA or VA). After origination, we generally package and sell the loans in the secondary mortgage market, through GSE and Ginnie Mae guaranteed securitizations and whole loan transactions. We typically retain the associated MSRs on securitizations, providing the Servicing business with a source of new MSRs to replenish our servicing portfolio and partially offset the impact of loan amortization and prepayments, i.e., portfolio runoff. Whole loan transactions are generally completed on a servicing released basis.
We also originate and purchase Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM or reverse mortgage loans) through our Liberty Home Equity Solutions, Inc. (Liberty) operations. Loans originated under this program are generally guaranteed by the FHA, which provides investors with protection against risk of borrower default. The reverse mortgage business generates revenue from new originations and subsequent tail draws, scheduled and unscheduled, taken by the borrower. In the second half of 2019, we launched our non-FHA guaranteed jumbo proprietary product, EquityIQ, for borrowers in high property value areas that exceed FHA limits.
Retail Lending. We originate forward and reverse mortgage loans directly with borrowers through our retail lending business. Our forward lending business benefits from our servicing portfolio by offering refinance options to qualified borrowers seeking to lower their mortgage payments. Depending on borrower eligibility, we refinance eligible customers into conforming or government-insured products. We also are increasing our ability to originate retail loans to non-Ocwen servicing customers through various marketing channels. Through lead campaigns and direct marketing, the retail channel seeks to convert leads into loans in a cost-efficient manner. We are focused on increasing recapture rates on our existing servicing portfolio to grow this business.
Correspondent Lending. Our correspondent lending operation purchases mortgage loans that have been originated by a network of approved third-party lenders. We re-entered the forward correspondent lending channel in the second quarter of 2019.
All the lenders participating in our correspondent lending program are approved by senior management members of our lending and compliance teams. We also employ an ongoing monitoring and renewal process for participating lenders that includes an evaluation of the performance of the loans they have sold to us. We perform a variety of pre- and post-funding

6


review procedures to ensure that the loans we purchase conform to our requirements and to the requirements of the investors to whom we sell loans.
Wholesale Lending. We originate reverse mortgage loans through a network of approved brokers. Brokers are subject to a formal approval and monitoring process. We underwrite all loans originated through this channel consistent with the underwriting standards required by the ultimate investor prior to funding.
We provide customary origination representations and warranties to investors in connection with our loan sales and securitization activities. We receive customary origination representations and warranties from our network of approved originators relating to loans we purchase through our correspondent lending channel. In the event we cannot remedy a breach of a representation or warranty, we may be required to repurchase the loan or provide an indemnification payment to the investor. To the extent that we have recourse against a third-party originator, we may recover part or all of any loss we incur.
REGULATION
Our business is subject to extensive oversight and regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities, including the CFPB, HUD and various state agencies that license and conduct examinations of our loan servicing, origination and collection activities. In addition, we operate under a number of regulatory settlements that subject us to ongoing reporting and other obligations. From time to time, we also receive requests (including requests in the form of subpoenas and civil investigative demands) from federal, state and local agencies for records, documents and information relating to the policies, procedures and practices of our loan servicing, origination and collection activities. The GSEs and their conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA), Ginnie Mae, the United States Treasury Department, various investors, non-Agency securitization trustees and others also subject us to periodic reviews and audits.
In the current regulatory environment, we have faced and expect to continue to face heightened regulatory and public scrutiny as an organization as well as stricter and more comprehensive regulation of the entire mortgage sector. We continue to work diligently to assess and understand the implications of the regulatory environment in which we operate and to meet the requirements of this constantly changing environment. We devote substantial resources to regulatory compliance, while, at the same time, striving to meet the needs and expectations of our customers, clients and other stakeholders. Our actual or alleged failure to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and licensing requirements could lead to any of the following:
•
loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses;
•
governmental investigations and enforcement actions;
•
administrative fines and penalties and litigation;
•
civil and criminal liability, including class action lawsuits and actions to recover incentive and other payments made by governmental entities;
•
breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements;
•
damage to our reputation;
•
inability to raise capital or otherwise secure the necessary financing to operate the business;
•
changes to our operations that may otherwise not occur in the normal course, and that could cause us to incur significant costs; or
•
inability to execute on our business strategy.
We must comply with a large number of federal, state and local consumer protection laws including, among others, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as individual state laws pertaining to licensing, general mortgage origination and servicing practices and foreclosure, and federal and local bankruptcy rules. These statutes apply to many facets of our business, including loan origination, default servicing and collections, use of credit reports, safeguarding of non-public personally identifiable information about our customers, foreclosure and claims handling, investment of and interest payments on escrow balances and escrow payment features, and mandate certain disclosures and notices to borrowers. These requirements can and do change as statutes and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted and enforced.
In recent years, the general trend among federal, state and local lawmakers and regulators has been toward increasing laws, regulations and investigative proceedings with regard to residential mortgage lenders and servicers. The CFPB continues to take a very active role in the mortgage industry, and its rule-making and regulatory agenda relating to loan servicing and origination continues to evolve. Individual states have also been active, as have other regulatory organizations such as the Multistate Mortgage Committee (MMC), a multistate coalition of various mortgage banking regulators. We also believe there has been a shift among certain regulators towards a broader view of the scope of regulatory oversight responsibilities with respect to mortgage lenders and servicers. In addition to their traditional focus on licensing and examination matters, certain

7


regulators have begun to make observations, recommendations or demands with respect to areas such as corporate governance, safety and soundness and risk and compliance management.
The CFPB and state regulators have also focused on the use and adequacy of technology in the mortgage servicing industry, privacy concerns and other topical issues, such as likely discontinuation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). In 2016, the CFPB issued a special edition supervision report that stressed the need for mortgage servicers to assess and make necessary improvements to their information technology systems to ensure compliance with the CFPB’s mortgage servicing requirements. The NY DFS also issued Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, which took effect in 2017, and which required banks, insurance companies, and other financial services institutions regulated by the NY DFS to establish and maintain a cybersecurity program designed to protect consumers and ensure the safety and soundness of New York State’s financial services industry. Likewise, the NY DFS has directed New York-regulated depository and non-depository institutions, insurers and pension funds to submit their plans for managing the risks relating to the likely discontinuation of LIBOR. Similarly, the California Consumer Privacy Act, which was enacted in 2018 and became effective on January 1, 2020, created new consumer rights relating to the access to, deletion of, and sharing of personal information.
New regulatory and legislative measures, or changes in enforcement practices, including those related to the technology we use, could, either individually or in the aggregate, require significant changes to our business practices, impose additional costs on us, limit our product offerings, limit our ability to efficiently pursue business opportunities, negatively impact asset values or reduce our revenues.
Our licensed entities are required to renew their licenses, typically on an annual basis, and to do so they must satisfy the license renewal requirements of each jurisdiction, which generally include financial requirements such as providing audited financial statements or satisfying minimum net worth requirements and non-financial requirements such as satisfactorily completing examinations as to the licensee’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The minimum net worth requirements to which our licensed entities are subject are unique to each state and type of license. Failure to satisfy any of the requirements to which our licensed entities are subject could result in a variety of regulatory actions ranging from a fine, a directive requiring a certain step to be taken, a suspension or ultimately a revocation of a license, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we receive information requests and other inquiries, both formal and informal in nature, from our state regulators as part of their general regulatory oversight of our servicing and lending businesses. We also engage with state attorneys general and the CFPB and, on occasion, we engage with other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and various inspectors general on various matters, including responding to information requests and other inquiries. Many of our regulatory engagements arise from a complaint that the entity is investigating, although some are formal investigations or proceedings. The GSEs and their conservator, FHFA, HUD, FHA, VA, Ginnie Mae, the United States Treasury Department, and others also subject us to periodic reviews and audits. We have in the past resolved, and may in the future resolve, matters via consent orders or payment of monetary amounts to settle issues identified in connection with examinations or regulatory or other oversight activities, and such resolutions could have material and adverse effects on our business, reputation, operations, results of operations and financial condition.
In recent years, we have been subject to significant state and federal regulatory actions against us, including the following:
•
We are currently in litigation with the CFPB after the CFPB filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida against Ocwen, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (OMS) and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (OLS) alleging violations of federal consumer financial laws relating to our servicing business
•
We are currently in litigation with the Florida Attorney General and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation after they filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida against Ocwen, OMS and OLS alleging violations of federal and state consumer financial laws relating to our servicing business
•
We have settled state regulatory actions against us by 29 states and the District of Columbia after these states and the District of Columbia alleged deficiencies in our compliance with laws and regulations relating to our servicing and lending activities
•
We have entered into regulatory settlements with the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) and the California Department of Business Oversight (CA DBO) relating to our servicing practices and other aspects of our business
•
We have entered into a settlement agreement with the MMC and consent orders with certain state attorneys general to resolve and close out findings of an MMC examination of PMC’s legacy mortgage servicing practices
We have incurred, and will continue to incur significant costs to comply with the terms of the settlements into which we have entered. In addition, the restrictions imposed under these settlements have significantly impacted how we run our business and will continue to do so. If we fail to comply with the terms of our settlements, additional legal or other actions could be taken against us. Such actions could have a materially adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

8


We continue to be subject to a number of ongoing federal and state regulatory examinations, consent orders, inquiries, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, requests for information and other actions, which could result in further adverse regulatory action against us.
To the extent that an examination, audit or other regulatory engagement identifies an alleged failure by us to comply with applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements, or if allegations are made that we have failed to comply with applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements or the commitments we have made in connection with our regulatory settlements (whether such allegations are made through administrative actions such as cease and desist orders, through legal proceedings or otherwise) or if other regulatory actions of a similar or different nature are taken in the future against us, this could lead to (i) administrative fines and penalties and litigation, (ii) loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses, (iii) governmental investigations and enforcement actions, (iv) civil and criminal liability, including class action lawsuits and actions to recover incentive and other payments made by governmental entities, (v) breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements, (vi) damage to our reputation, (vii) inability to raise capital or otherwise fund our operations, (viii) changes to our operations that may otherwise not occur in the normal course, and that could cause us to incur significant costs or (ix) inability to execute on our business strategy. Any of these occurrences could increase our operating expenses and reduce our revenues, hamper our ability to grow or otherwise materially and adversely affect our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
Finally, there are a number of foreign laws and regulations that are applicable to our operations outside of the U.S., including laws and regulations that govern licensing, employment, safety, taxes and insurance and laws and regulations that govern the creation, continuation and the winding up of companies as well as the relationships between shareholders, our corporate entities, the public and the government in these countries. Non-compliance with these laws and regulations could result in adverse actions against us, including (i) restrictions on our operations in these counties, (ii) fines, penalties or sanctions or (iii) reputational damage.
COMPETITION
The financial services markets in which we operate are highly competitive. We compete with large and small financial services companies, including bank and non-bank entities, in the servicing and lending markets. Our competitors include large banks, such as Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citibank, large non-bank servicers such as Mr. Cooper and PennyMac Loan Services, market disruptors such as Quicken Loans, SunTrust Mortgage and Regions Mortgage who are aggressively investing in the digital transformation of their business platforms, and real estate investment trusts, including New Residential Investment Corp.
In the servicing industry, we compete based on price, quality and risk appetite. Potential counterparties also (1) assess our regulatory compliance track record and examine our systems and processes for maintaining and demonstrating regulatory compliance, (2) consider our customer satisfaction rankings, and (3) consider our third-party servicer ratings. Certain of our competitors, especially large banks, may have substantially lower costs of capital and greater financial resources, which makes it challenging to compete. We believe that our competitive strengths flow from our ability to control and drive down delinquencies using proprietary processes, our lower cost to service non-performing loans and our deep know-how as a long-time operator of servicing loans. Notwithstanding these strengths, we have suffered reputational damage as a result of our regulatory settlements and the associated scrutiny of our business. We believe this has weakened our competitive position against both our bank and non-bank servicing competitors.
In the lending industry, we face intense competition in most areas, including product offerings, rates, fees and customer service. Some of our competitors, including the larger banks, have substantially lower costs of capital and strong retail presence, which makes it challenging to compete. In addition, with the proliferation of smartphones and technological changes enabling improved payment systems and cheaper data storage, newer market participants, often called “disruptors,” are reinventing aspects of the financial industry and capturing profit pools previously enjoyed by existing market participants. As a result, the lending industry could become even more competitive if new market participants are successful in capturing market share from existing market participants such as ourselves. We believe our competitive strengths flow from our existing customer relationships and from our focus on providing strong customer service.
The reverse lending market faces many of the same competitive pressures as the forward market. In addition, the reverse market is significantly smaller than the forward market with a higher market share concentration among the top five Ginnie Mae HMBS issuers. These higher concentration levels can, at times, lead to significant price competition. We believe our competitive advantage flows from Liberty’s long tenure in the industry (Liberty began operations in 2004), which provides us with significant experience and contributes to our name recognition, our strategic partnerships and our use of technology to produce higher levels of productivity to drive down per-loan costs.

9


THIRD-PARTY SERVICER RATINGS
Like other servicers, we are the subject of mortgage servicer ratings or rankings (collectively, ratings) issued and revised from time to time by rating agencies including Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (Moody’s), S&P Global Ratings, Inc. (S&P) and Fitch Ratings, Inc. (Fitch). Favorable ratings from these agencies are important to the conduct of our loan servicing and lending businesses.
The following table summarizes our key servicer ratings:
 
PHH Mortgage Corporation
 
Moody’s
 
S&P
 
Fitch
Residential Prime Servicer
SQ3
 
Average
 
RPS3
Residential Subprime Servicer
SQ3
 
Average
 
RPS3
Residential Special Servicer
SQ3
 
Average
 
RSS3
Residential Second/Subordinate Lien Servicer
SQ3
 
Average
 
RPS3
Residential Home Equity Servicer
—
 
—
 
RPS3
Residential Alt-A Servicer
—
 
—
 
RPS3
Master Servicer
SQ3
 
Average
 
RMS3
Ratings Outlook
N/A
 
Stable
 
Stable
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date of last action
August 29, 2019
 
December 27, 2019
 
December 19, 2019
Following the merger of OLS into PMC on June 1, 2019, Ocwen submitted requests to withdraw the servicer ratings for OLS. S&P and Moody’s have transferred the Master Servicer rating for OLS to PMC, and Fitch assigned the Master Servicer rating on December 19, 2019.
In addition to servicer ratings, each of the agencies will from time to time assign an outlook (or a ratings watch such as Moody’s review status) to the rating status of a mortgage servicer. A negative outlook is generally used to indicate that a rating “may be lowered,” while a positive outlook is generally used to indicate a rating “may be raised.” There have been no new outlooks released for PMC regarding our servicer ratings.
Downgrades in servicer ratings could adversely affect our ability to service loans, sell or finance servicing advances and could impair our ability to consummate future servicing transactions or adversely affect our dealings with lenders, other contractual counterparties, and regulators, including our ability to maintain our status as an approved servicer by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The servicer rating requirements of Fannie Mae do not necessarily require or imply immediate action, as Fannie Mae has discretion with respect to whether we are in compliance with their requirements and what actions it deems appropriate under the circumstances if we fall below their desired servicer ratings.
See Item 1A. Risk Factors - Risks Relating to Our Business for further discussion of the adverse effects that a failure to maintain minimum servicer ratings could have on our business, financing activities, financial condition or results of operations.
NEW RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT CORP. RELATIONSHIP
Ocwen has a legacy relationship with NRZ and we acquired PMC’s legacy relationship with NRZ when we acquired PHH in October 2018. As a result, we service loans on behalf of NRZ under various agreements, including traditional subservicing agreements, where NRZ is the legal owner of the MSRs, and in connection with Rights to MSRs, where Ocwen retains legal title to the underlying MSRs but NRZ has generally assumed risks and rewards consistent with an MSR owner. As of December 31, 2019, we serviced loans with a UPB of $58.1 billion under legacy Ocwen subservicing agreements, loans with a UPB of $18.5 billion under legacy Ocwen Rights to MSRs agreements and loans with a UPB of $42.1 billion under a legacy PMC subservicing agreement. See Note 10 — Rights to MSRs and Note 25 — Commitments, NRZ Relationship.
NRZ is our largest servicing client, accounting for 56% of the UPB of our servicing portfolio as of December 31, 2019 and approximately 74% of all delinquent loans that Ocwen serviced. During 2019, NRZ-related servicing fees retained by Ocwen represented approximately 36% of the total servicing and subservicing fees earned by Ocwen, net of servicing fees remitted to NRZ (excluding ancillary income). We also benefit from the amortization of $334.2 million in upfront lump-sum cash payments that we received from NRZ in 2017 and 2018 when we renegotiated certain aspects of the legacy Ocwen agreements. These lump-sum cash payments were deferred and are recorded within Other income (expense) within our financial statements as they amortize through the remaining term of the original agreements (April 2020). As a result, through April 2020, we expect to recognize income of $35.4 million due to the amortization of these lump sum payments.

10


During 2019, we completed an assessment of the cost-to-service and the profitability of the NRZ servicing portfolio. Based on this analysis, in the fourth quarter of 2019, we estimated that operating expenses, including direct servicing expenses and overhead allocation, exceeded the net revenue retained for the NRZ servicing portfolio by approximately $10.0 million. As with all estimates, this estimate required the exercise of judgment, including with respect to overhead allocations, and it excludes the benefits of the lump-sum payment amortization. The estimated loss for these subservicing agreements is partially driven by the declining revenue as the loan portfolio amortizes down without a corresponding reduction to our servicing cost over time. As performing loans in the NRZ servicing portfolio have run-off, delinquencies have remained high, resulting in a relatively elevated average cost per loan. Because the NRZ portfolio contains a high percentage of delinquent accounts, it has an inherently high level of potential operational and compliance risk and requires a disproportionately high level of operating staff, oversight support infrastructure and overhead which drives the elevated average cost per loan. We actively pursue cost re-engineering initiatives to continue to reduce our cost-to-service and our corporate overhead, as well as pursue actions to grow our non-NRZ servicing portfolio to offset the losses on the NRZ sub servicing.
On February 20, 2020, we received a notice of termination from NRZ with respect to the legacy PMC subservicing agreement. This termination is for convenience (and not for cause). The notice states that the effective date of termination is June 19, 2020 for 25% of the loans under the agreement (not including loans constituting approximately $6.6 billion in UPB that were added by NRZ under the agreement in 2019) and August 18, 2020 for the remainder of the loans under the agreement. The actual servicing transfer date(s) will be determined through discussions with NRZ and other stakeholders such as GSEs. In connection with the termination, we estimate that we will receive loan deboarding fees of approximately $6.1 million from NRZ. The portfolio subject to termination accounted for $42.1 billion in UPB, or 20% of our total serviced UPB as of December 31, 2019. Under this agreement, in the fourth quarter of 2019, we estimate that operating expenses, including direct expenses and overhead allocation, exceeded the net revenue retained for this portion of the NRZ servicing portfolio by approximately $3.0 million. At this stage, we do not anticipate significant operational impacts on our servicing business as a result of this termination. The terminated servicing is comprised of Agency loans with relatively low delinquencies that do not pose a high level of operating and compliance risk or require substantial direct and oversight staffing relative to our non-Agency servicing. Nonetheless, we intend to right-size and reduce expenses in our servicing business and the related corporate support functions to the extent possible to align with our smaller portfolio.
We currently anticipate that the loan deboarding fees from NRZ will offset a significant portion of our transition and restructuring costs assuming an orderly and timely transfer. However, it is possible that the loan deboarding and other transition activities that we will undertake as a result of the termination may not occur in an orderly or timely manner, which could be disruptive and could result in us incurring additional costs or even in disagreements with NRZ relating to our respective rights and obligations. Overall, our current view is that if we can exclude the legacy PMC NRZ servicing portfolio and successfully execute on the necessary transition and expense reduction actions in an orderly and timely manner, we will be able to enhance the long-term financial performance of our servicing business.
The legacy Ocwen agreements have an initial term ending in July 2022 and the underlying loans are almost exclusively non-Agency loans. As a result, the servicing of these loans involves a higher level of operational and regulatory risk and requires substantial direct and oversight staffing relative to Agency loans. NRZ may terminate the agreements for convenience, subject to Ocwen’s right to receive a termination fee and 180 days’ notice at any time during the initial term. The termination fee is calculated as specified in the Ocwen agreements, and is a discounted percentage of the expected revenues that would be owed to Ocwen over the remaining contract term based on certain portfolio run off assumptions. After the initial term, these agreements can be renewed for three-month terms at NRZ’s option. In addition to a base servicing fee, we receive ancillary income, which primarily includes late fees, loan modification fees and Speedpay® fees. We may also receive certain incentive fees or pay penalties tied to various contractual performance metrics. NRZ receives all float earnings and deferred servicing fees related to delinquent borrower payments, as well as certain REO-related income, including REO referral commissions. As legal MSR owner, or in compliance with the Rights to MSRs agreements, NRZ is responsible for financing all servicing advance obligations in connection with the loans underlying the MSRs.
PMC and NRZ are parties to an MSR sale agreement pursuant to which $2.7 billion in UPB of MSRs and the related advances remain to be sold to NRZ as of December 31, 2019. These MSRs and the related advances have not been sold because required third-party consents have not been obtained. Ocwen and NRZ are in discussions regarding the disposition of these remaining assets.
In the ordinary course, we regularly share information with NRZ and discuss various aspects of our relationship. At times, we discuss modifications to our relationship that we believe could be to our mutual benefit as our respective businesses evolve over time. We also discuss alternatives to the outcomes contemplated under our agreements when they were originally executed as facts and circumstances change over time. Examples of these discussions include our discussions with respect to the $18.5 billion in UPB of Rights to MSRs and our discussions with respect to the $2.7 billion in UPB of MSRs and the related advances that remain to be sold to NRZ under the legacy PMC sale agreement referenced above. With respect to the Rights to MSRs, we are discussing various alternative arrangements, including those contemplated under our existing agreements which

11


provide, among other scenarios, that the Rights to MSRs could (i) remain in the existing Rights to MSR structure, (ii) be acquired by Ocwen or (iii) be sold or transferred to a third party together with Ocwen’s title to the related MSRs. As part of these discussions, we have discussed several potential changes to existing contracts. It is also possible that NRZ could exercise its rights to terminate for convenience some or all of the legacy Ocwen servicing agreements. In our business planning efforts, we have analyzed the potential impact of such an action by NRZ in light of the current and predicted future economics of the NRZ relationship generally. Because of the large percentage of our servicing business that is represented by agreements with NRZ, if NRZ exercised all or a significant portion of these termination rights, we would need to substantially restructure many aspects of our servicing business as well as the related corporate support functions to address our smaller servicing portfolio. This would likely be a complex and expensive undertaking. However, we would also receive termination fees that we would expect to offset a significant portion of our transition and restructuring costs. Overall, we believe that if we were to exclude our NRZ servicing portfolio and successfully execute on the necessary transition and restructuring actions, we would be able to enhance the long-term financial performance and reduce the client concentration and operating risk profile of our servicing business.
ALTISOURCE VENDOR RELATIONSHIP
Ocwen is a party to a number of long-term agreements with Altisource S.à r.l., and certain of other subsidiaries of Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. (Altisource), including a Services Agreement, under which Altisource provides various services, such as property valuation services, property preservation and inspection services and title services, among other things. This agreement expires August 31, 2025 and includes renewal provisions. Ocwen and Altisource have also entered into a Master Services Agreement pursuant to which Altisource currently provides title services to Liberty. Ocwen also has a General Referral Fee Agreement with Altisource pursuant to which Ocwen receives referral fees which are paid out of the commission that would otherwise be paid to Altisource as the selling broker in connection with real estate sales services provided by Altisource. However, for MSRs that transferred to NRZ, as well as those subject to our Rights to MSRs agreements with NRZ, we are not entitled to REO referral commissions.
In February 2019, Ocwen and Altisource signed a Binding Term Sheet, which among other things, confirmed Altisource’s cooperation with the deboarding of loans from Altisource’s REALServicing servicing system to Black Knight MSP. The Binding Term Sheet also amends certain provisions in the Services Agreement. After certain conditions have been met and where Ocwen has the right to select the services provider, Ocwen agreed to use Altisource to provide the types of services that Altisource currently provides under the Services Agreement for at least 90% of services for all portfolios for which Ocwen is the servicer or subservicer, except that Altisource will be the provider for all such services for the portfolios: (i) acquired by Ocwen pursuant to loan servicing under agreements from Homeward (acquired in 2012) or assigned and assumed by Ocwen from Residential Capital, LLC, et al (assets acquired in 2013); and (ii) acquired from Ocwen, excluding certain portfolios in which PHH has an interest, by NRZ or its affiliates prior to the date of the Binding Term Sheet. The Binding Term Sheet also sets forth a framework for negotiating additional service level changes under the Services Agreement in the future. As specified in the Binding Term Sheet, if Altisource fails certain performance standards for specified periods of time, then Ocwen may terminate Altisource as a provider for the applicable service(s), subject to Altisource’s right to cure. For certain claims arising from service referrals received by Altisource after the effective date of the Binding Term Sheet, the provisions include reciprocal indemnification obligations in the event of negligence by either party, and Altisource’s indemnification of Ocwen in the event of breach by Altisource of its obligations under the Services Agreement. The limitations of liability provisions include an exception for losses either party suffers as a result of third-party claims.
Certain services provided by Altisource under these agreements are charged to the borrower and/or mortgage loan investor. Accordingly, such services, while derived from our loan servicing portfolio, are not reported as expenses by Ocwen. These services include residential property valuation, residential property preservation and inspection services, title services and real estate sales-related services.
USVI OPERATIONS
The majority of our USVI operations and assets were transferred to the U.S. during 2019 as a result of our legal entity simplification.
In 2012, as part of an initiative to reorganize the ownership and management of our global servicing assets and operations under a single entity and cost-effectively expand our U.S.- based origination and servicing activities, Ocwen formed OMS under the laws of the USVI where OMS was incorporated and had its principal place of business. OMS was headquartered in Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI and was located in a federally recognized economic development zone where qualified entities are eligible for certain tax benefits. We refer to these benefits as “EDC Benefits” as they are granted by the USVI Economic Development Commission (EDC). We were approved as a Category IIA service business, and are therefore entitled to receive significant benefits that may have a favorable impact on our effective tax rate. These benefits, among others, enabled us to avail ourselves of a credit of 90% of income taxes on certain qualified income related to our servicing business. The exemption was granted as of October 1, 2012 and is available for a period of 30 years until expiration on September 30, 2042. Although we are

12


eligible for a reduced tax rate in the USVI, the reduced tax rate has not provided Ocwen with a foreign tax benefit in recent tax years as we have been incurring taxable losses in the USVI.
During 2019, following our acquisition of PHH in 2018, and in connection with our overall corporate simplification and cost reduction efforts, we executed a legal entity reorganization whereby OLS, through which we previously conducted a substantial portion of our servicing business, was merged into PHH. OLS was previously the wholly-owned subsidiary of OMS, which was incorporated and headquartered in the USVI prior to its merger in November 2019 with Ocwen USVI Services, LLC, an entity which is also organized and headquartered in the USVI. As a result of this reorganization, the majority of our USVI operations and assets were transferred to the U.S. We expect the reorganization to result in efficiencies and operational cost savings through reduced complexity and a simplification of our global structure.
It is possible that we may not be able to retain our qualifications for the EDC Benefits, or that changes in U.S. federal, state, local, territorial or USVI taxation statutes or applicable regulations may cause a reduction in or an elimination of the value of the EDC Benefits, all of which could result in an increase to our tax expense, including a loss of anticipated income tax refunds, and, therefore, adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, although we executed a legal entity reorganization in 2019 such that the majority of our USVI operations and assets were transferred to the U.S., we plan to continue to maintain operations in the USVI until, through and after the reorganization as it is possible that our past and future EDC Benefits could be adversely impacted, which could jeopardize our ability to return to profitability.
On December 22, 2017, significant revisions to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, were signed into law (Tax Act). The newly enacted federal income tax law, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including reduction of the U.S. corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%, elimination of U.S. tax on foreign earnings (subject to certain important exceptions), and a new minimum tax enacted to prevent companies from stripping earnings out of the U.S. through U.S. tax deductible payments made to foreign affiliates. The reduction in the statutory U.S. federal rate is expected to positively impact our future U.S. after-tax earnings. However, the impact of the Tax Act on our future after tax earnings is subject to the effect of other complex provisions in the Tax Act, including the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT), Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI), and revised interest deductibility limitations. It is possible that the impact of these provisions could significantly reduce the benefit of the reduction in the statutory U.S. federal rate and may also negatively impact the tax advantages received from the EDC Benefits. In addition, Ocwen is continuing to evaluate the impact of the new tax legislation and recently issued regulations on its global tax position. Certain provisions of the new tax laws and regulations have resulted in an increase to our current income tax obligations.
EMPLOYEES
We had a total of approximately 5,300 and 7,200 employees at December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. We maintain operations in the U.S., USVI, India and the Philippines. At December 31, 2019, approximately 3,400 of our employees were located in India and approximately 400 were based in the Philippines. Of our foreign-based employees, nearly 80% were engaged in our Servicing operations as of December 31, 2019. Because of the large number of employees in India, our operations could be impacted by significant changes to the political or economic conditions in India or in the political or regulatory climate in the U.S. with respect to U.S. businesses engaging in foreign operations. If we had to curtail or cease our operations in India and transfer some or all of these operations to another geographic area, we could incur significant transition costs as well as higher future overhead costs that could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.
SUBSIDIARIES
For a listing of our significant subsidiaries, refer to Exhibit 21.1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports are made available free of charge through our website (www.ocwen.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers, including Ocwen, that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that site is www.sec.gov. We have also posted on our website, and have available in print upon request (1) the charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation and Human Capital Committee, Nomination/Governance Committee and Risk and Compliance Committee, (2) our Corporate Governance Guidelines, (3) our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and (4) our Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers. Within the time period required by the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange, we will post on our website any amendment to or waiver of the Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, as well as any amendment to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics or waiver thereto applicable to any executive officer or director. We may post information that is important to investors on our website. The information provided on our website is not part of this report and is, therefore, not incorporated herein by reference.

13


ITEM 1A.
RISK FACTORS
An investment in our common stock involves significant risk. We describe below the most significant risks that management believes affect or could affect us. Understanding these risks is important to understanding any statement in this Annual Report and to evaluating an investment in our common stock. You should carefully read and consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all the other information included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report before you make any decision regarding an investment in our common stock. You should also consider the information set forth above under “Forward Looking Statements.” If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of our common stock could significantly decline, and you could lose some or all of your investment. While the following discussion provides a description of some of the important risks that could cause our results to vary materially from those expressed in public statements or documents, other factors besides those discussed within this Annual Report or elsewhere in other of our reports filed with or furnished to the SEC could also affect our business or results.
We have divided this section into the following general risk categories:
•
Legal and Regulatory Related Risks
•
Risks Related to Our Financial Performance, Financing Our Business, Liquidity and Net Worth and the Economy
•
Operational Risks and Other Risks Related to Our Business
•
Tax Risks
•
Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Common Stock
Legal and Regulatory Risks
The business in which we engage is complex and heavily regulated. If we fail to operate our business in compliance with both existing and future regulations, our business, reputation, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Our business is subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities, including the CFPB, HUD, the SEC and various state agencies that license and conduct examinations of our servicing and lending activities. In addition, we operate under a number of regulatory settlements that subject us to ongoing reporting and other obligations. See the next risk factor below for additional detail concerning these regulatory settlements. From time to time, we also receive requests (including requests in the form of subpoenas and civil investigative demands) from federal, state and local agencies for records, documents and information relating to our servicing and lending activities. The GSEs (and their conservator, the FHFA), Ginnie Mae, the United States Treasury Department, various investors, non-Agency securitization trustees and others also subject us to periodic reviews and audits.
In the current regulatory environment, we have faced and expect to continue to face heightened regulatory and public scrutiny as an organization as well as stricter and more comprehensive regulation of the entire mortgage sector. We must devote substantial resources to regulatory compliance, and we incurred, and expect to continue to incur, significant ongoing costs to comply with new and existing laws and governmental regulation of our business. If we fail to effectively manage our regulatory and contractual compliance, the resources we are required to devote and our compliance expenses would likely increase. Any significant delay or complication in fulfilling our regulatory commitments and resolving remaining legacy matters may jeopardize our ability to return to profitability.
We must comply with a large number of federal, state and local consumer protection laws including, among others, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, RESPA, TILA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as individual state licensing and foreclosure laws and federal and local bankruptcy rules. These statutes apply to many facets of our business, including loan origination, default servicing and collections, use of credit reports, safeguarding of non-public personally identifiable information about our customers, foreclosure and claims handling, investment of and interest payments on escrow balances and escrow payment features, and mandate certain disclosures and notices to borrowers. These requirements can and do change as statutes and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted and enforced. In addition, we must maintain an effective corporate governance and compliance management system. See “Business - Regulation” for additional information regarding our regulators and the laws that apply to us.
We must structure and operate our business to comply with applicable laws and regulations and the terms of our regulatory settlements. This can require judgment with respect to the requirements of such laws and regulations and such settlements. While we endeavor to engage proactively with our regulators in an effort to ensure we do so correctly, if we fail to interpret correctly the requirements of such laws and regulations or the terms of our regulatory settlements, we could be found to be in breach of such laws, regulations or settlements.

14


Our actual or alleged failure to comply with the terms of our regulatory settlements or applicable federal, state and local consumer protection laws, regulations and licensing requirements could lead to any of the following:
•
administrative fines and penalties and litigation;
•
loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses;
•
governmental investigations and enforcement actions;
•
civil and criminal liability, including class action lawsuits and actions to recover incentive and other payments made by governmental entities;
•
breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements;
•
damage to our reputation;
•
inability to raise capital or otherwise secure the necessary financing to operate the business and refinance maturing liabilities;
•
changes to our operations that may otherwise not occur in the normal course, and that could cause us to incur significant costs; or
•
inability to execute on our business strategy.
Any of these outcomes could materially and adversely affect our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
In recent years, the general trend among federal, state and local lawmakers and regulators has been toward increasing laws, regulations and investigative proceedings with regard to residential mortgage lenders and servicers. The CFPB continues to take a very active role in the mortgage industry, and its rule-making and regulatory agenda relating to loan servicing and originations continues to evolve. Individual states, including New York and California, have also been active, as have other regulatory organizations such as the MMC. We also believe there has been a shift among certain regulators towards a broader view of the scope of regulatory oversight responsibilities with respect to mortgage originators and servicers. In addition to their traditional focus on licensing and examination matters, certain regulators have begun to make observations, recommendations or demands with respect to such areas as corporate governance, safety and soundness, and risk and compliance management. We must endeavor to work cooperatively with our regulators to understand all their concerns if we are to be successful in our business.
The CFPB and state regulators have also increasingly focused on the use, and adequacy, of technology in the mortgage servicing industry, privacy concerns and other topical issues, such as likely discontinuation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). In 2016, the CFPB issued a special edition supervision report that stressed the need for mortgage servicers to assess and make necessary improvements to their information technology systems in order to ensure compliance with the CFPB’s mortgage servicing requirements. The NY DFS also issued Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, effective in 2017, which require banks, insurance companies, and other financial services institutions regulated by the NY DFS to establish and maintain a cybersecurity program designed to protect consumers and ensure the safety and soundness of New York State’s financial services industry. Likewise, the NY DFS has directed New York-regulated depository and non-depository institutions, insurers and pension funds to submit their plans for managing the risks relating to the likely discontinuation of LIBOR. Similarly, the California Consumer Privacy Act, which was enacted in 2018 and became effective on January 1, 2020, created new consumer rights relating to the access to, deletion of, and sharing of personal information.
Presently, a level of heightened uncertainty exists with respect to the future of regulation of mortgage lending and servicing, including the future of the Dodd Frank Act and CFPB. We cannot predict the specific legislative or executive actions that may result or what actions federal or state regulators might take in response to potential changes to the Dodd Frank Act or to the federal regulatory environment generally. Such actions could impact the industry generally or us specifically, could impact our relationships with other regulators, and could adversely impact our business and limit our ability to reach an appropriate resolution with the CFPB, with which we are engaged to attempt to resolve certain concerns relating to our mortgage servicing practices, as described in the next risk factor.
New regulatory and legislative measures, or changes in enforcement practices, including those related to the technology we use, could, either individually or in the aggregate, require significant changes to our business practices, impose additional costs on us, limit our product offerings, limit our ability to efficiently pursue business opportunities, negatively impact asset values or reduce our revenues. Accordingly, they could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
Governmental bodies have taken regulatory and legal actions against us in the past and may in the future impose regulatory fines or penalties or impose additional requirements or restrictions on our activities that could increase our operating expenses, reduce our revenues or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, ability to grow and reputation.
We are subject to a number of ongoing federal and state regulatory examinations, consent orders, inquiries, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, requests for information and other actions that could result in further adverse regulatory action

15


against us, including certain matters summarized below. See Note 24 — Regulatory Requirements and Note 26 — Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
CFPB
In April 2017, the CFPB filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida against Ocwen, OMS and OLS alleging violations of federal consumer financial laws relating to our servicing business dating back to 2014. The CFPB’s claims include allegations regarding (1) the adequacy of Ocwen’s servicing system and integrity of Ocwen’s mortgage servicing data, (2) Ocwen’s foreclosure practices and (3) various purported servicer errors with respect to borrower escrow accounts, hazard insurance policies, timely cancellation of private mortgage insurance, handling of customer complaints, and marketing of optional products. The CFPB alleges violations of unfair, deceptive acts or abusive practices, as well as violations of specific laws or regulations. The CFPB does not claim specific monetary damages, although it does seek consumer relief, disgorgement of allegedly improper gains, and civil money penalties. While we believe we have factual and legal defenses to the CFPB’s allegations and are vigorously defending ourselves, the outcome of the matters raised by the CFPB, whether through negotiated settlements, court rulings or otherwise, could potentially involve monetary fines or penalties or additional restrictions on our business and could have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
State Licensing and State Attorneys General
Our licensed entities are required to renew their licenses, typically on an annual basis, and to do so they must satisfy the license renewal requirements of each jurisdiction, which generally include financial requirements such as providing audited financial statements or satisfying minimum net worth requirements and non-financial requirements such as satisfactorily completing examinations as to the licensee’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The minimum net worth requirements to which our licensed entities are subject are unique to each state and type of license. We believe our licensed entities were in compliance with all of their minimum net worth requirements at December 31, 2019. However, it is possible that regulators could disagree with our calculations, and one state regulator has disagreed with our calculation for a prior year period; we have discussed the matter with the regulator, including why we believe we were in compliance with the applicable net worth requirements. Failure to satisfy any of the requirements to which our licensed entities are subject could result in a variety of regulatory actions ranging from a fine, a directive requiring a certain step to be taken, a suspension or, ultimately, a revocation of a license, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.
In April 2017 and shortly thereafter, mortgage and banking regulatory agencies from 29 states and the District of Columbia took regulatory actions against OLS and certain other Ocwen companies that alleged deficiencies in our compliance with laws and regulations relating to our servicing and lending activities. These regulatory actions generally took the form of orders styled as “cease and desist orders” and prohibited a range of actions relating to our lending and servicing activities. We entered into agreements with all 29 states plus the District of Columbia to resolve these regulatory actions. These agreements generally contained the Multi-State Common Settlement Terms.
In addition, Ocwen entered into settlements with certain states on different or additional terms, which include making additional communications with and for borrowers, certain restrictions, certain review, reporting and remediation obligations, and requirements to make certain monetary payments.
We have incurred and will continue to incur, significant costs complying with the terms of these settlements, including in connection with the escrow analysis and the transition to Black Knight MSP. In addition, the remediation of errors identified during the escrow analysis could result in payments, credits or other actions to remediate such errors and legal or other actions could be taken against us by regulators or others with respect to such errors, which could result in additional costs or other adverse impacts. If we fail to comply with the terms of our settlements, additional legal or other actions could be taken against us. Such actions could have a materially adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
Although we have resolved all of the administrative actions taken by state regulators in April 2017 and shortly thereafter, we have not resolved all of the legal actions. In April 2017, and concurrent with the issuance of the cease and desist orders and the filing of the CFPB lawsuit discussed above, the Florida Attorney General, together with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida against Ocwen, OMS and OLS alleging violations of federal and state consumer financial laws relating to our servicing business. These claims are similar to the claims made by the CFPB. The Florida lawsuit seeks injunctive and equitable relief, costs, and civil money penalties in excess of $10,000 per confirmed violation of the applicable statute.
Certain of the state regulators’ cease and desist orders referenced a confidential supervisory memorandum of understanding (MOU) that we entered into with the MMC and six states relating to a servicing examination from 2013 to 2015. Among other things, the MOU prohibited us from repurchasing stock during the development of a going forward plan and, thereafter, except as permitted by the plan. We submitted a plan in 2016 that contained no stock repurchase restrictions and, therefore, we do not

16


believe we are currently restricted from repurchasing stock. We requested confirmation from the signatories of the MOU that they agree with this interpretation, and received affirmative responses from the MMC and five states, and a response declining to take a legal position from the remaining state.
In January 2018, prior to our acquisition of PHH, PMC entered into a settlement agreement with the MMC and consent orders with certain state attorneys general to resolve and close out findings of an MMC examination of PMC’s legacy mortgage servicing practices. Under the terms of these settlements, PMC agreed to comply with certain servicing standards, to conduct testing of compliance with such servicing standards for a period of three years ending December 31, 2020, and to report to the MMC regarding the same. To the extent PMC does not comply with the terms of the servicing standards, the MMC or state attorneys general could take regulatory action against us, including imposing fines or penalties or otherwise restricting our business activities.
We continue to work with the NY DFS to address matters they continue to raise with us as well as to fulfill our commitments under the 2017 NY Consent Order and PHH acquisition conditional approval. To the extent that we fail to address adequately any concerns raised by the NY DFS or fail to fulfill our commitments to the NY DFS, the NY DFS could take regulatory action against us, including imposing fines or penalties or otherwise restricting our business activities. Any such actions could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition liquidity and results of operations.
We have certain remaining reporting and other obligations under the 2017 CA Consent Order, including our completion of $198.0 million in debt forgiveness for California borrowers by June 30, 2019. We believe we fulfilled this requirement during the first quarter of 2019. However, our completion of this requirement is subject to testing by the CA DBO’s third-party administrator who must confirm, among other things, that modified loans have remained current for specified time periods. If we are unable to satisfy this requirement or obtain an extension, the 2017 CA Consent Order obligates us to pay the remaining amount to the CA DBO in cash. If the CA DBO were to allege that we failed to comply with our obligations under the 2017 CA Consent Order or that we otherwise were in breach of applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements, the CA DBO could also take regulatory actions against us, including imposing fines or penalties or otherwise restricting our business activities. Any such actions could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition liquidity and results of operations.
Other Matters
On occasion, we engage with agencies of the federal government on various matters, including the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General of HUD, SIGTARP and the VA Office of the Inspector General. In addition to the expense of responding to subpoenas and other requests for information from such agencies, in the event that any of these engagements result in allegations of wrongdoing by us, we may incur fines or penalties or significant legal expenses defending ourselves against such allegations.
In recent years, we have entered into significant settlements with the NY DFS, the CA DBO, and the 2013 Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. These settlements involved payments of significant monetary amounts, monitoring by third-party firms for which we were financially responsible and other restrictions on our business. For example, we recognized $177.5 million in third-party monitoring costs alone relating to these settlements between 2014 and 2017. While we are not currently subject to active monitorships under these settlements, we remain obligated to comply with the commitments made to our regulators and if we violate those commitments one or more of these entities could take regulatory action against us. Any future settlements or other regulatory actions against us could have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, operating results, liquidity and financial condition will be adversely affected.
To the extent that an examination or other regulatory engagement results in an alleged failure by us to comply with applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements, or if allegations are made that we have failed to comply with applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements or the commitments we have made in connection with our regulatory settlements (whether such allegations are made through administrative actions such as cease and desist orders, through legal proceedings or otherwise) or if other regulatory actions of a similar or different nature are taken in the future against us, this could lead to (i) administrative fines, penalties and litigation, (ii) loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses, (iii) governmental investigations and enforcement actions, (iv) civil and criminal liability, including class action lawsuits and actions to recover incentive and other payments made by governmental entities, (v) breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements, (vi) damage to our reputation, (vii) inability to raise capital or otherwise secure the necessary funding to operate the business, (viii) changes to our operations that may otherwise not occur in the normal course, and that could cause us to incur significant costs, and (ix) inability to execute on our business strategy. Any of these outcomes could increase our operating expenses and reduce our revenues, hamper our ability to grow or otherwise materially and adversely affect our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
Our regulatory settlements and public allegations regarding our business practices by regulators and other third parties may affect other regulators’, rating agencies’, and creditors’ perceptions, which could adversely impact our financial results and ongoing operations.

17


Our regulatory settlements and public allegations regarding our business practices by regulators and other third parties may affect other regulators’, rating agencies’ and creditors’ perceptions of us. As a result, our ordinary course interactions with regulators may be adversely affected. We may incur additional compliance costs and management time may be diverted from other aspects of our business to address regulatory issues. It is possible that we may incur additional fines or penalties or even that we could lose the licenses and approvals necessary to engage in our servicing and lending businesses. In addition, certain regulators have begun to make observations, recommendations or demands with respect to areas such as corporate governance, safety and soundness and risk and compliance management, which could require us to incur additional expense or which could result in the imposition of additional requirements such as liquidity and capital requirements or restrictions on business conduct such as engaging in stock repurchases. To the extent that rating agencies or creditors perceive us negatively, our servicer or credit ratings could be adversely impacted and our access to funding could be limited.
If regulators allege that we do not comply with the terms of our regulatory settlements, or if we enter into future regulatory settlements, it could significantly impact our ability to maintain and grow our servicing portfolio.
Our servicing portfolio naturally decreases over time as homeowners make regularly scheduled mortgage payments, prepay loans prior to maturity, refinance with a mortgage loan not serviced by us or involuntarily liquidate through foreclosure or other liquidation process. Our ability to maintain or grow the size of our servicing portfolio depends on our ability to acquire the right to service or subservice additional pools of mortgage loans or to originate additional loans for which we retain the MSRs.
Our regulatory settlements have significantly impacted our ability to maintain or grow our servicing portfolio because we agreed to certain restrictions that effectively prohibited future bulk acquisitions of residential servicing. While certain of these restrictions have been eased in connection with our resolution of state regulatory matters and acquisition of PHH, we are still restricted in our ability to grow our portfolio under the terms of our agreements with the NY DFS. If we are unable to satisfy the conditions of the regulatory commitments we made to these and other regulators, or if a future regulatory settlement restricts our ability to acquire MSRs, we will be unable to grow or even maintain the size of our servicing portfolio through acquisitions and our business could be materially and adversely affected. Moreover, even when regulatory restrictions are lifted, the reputational damage done by these actions may inhibit our ability to acquire new business.
If we are unable to respond timely and effectively to routine or other regulatory examinations and borrower complaints, our business and financial conditions may be adversely affected.
Regulatory examinations by state and federal regulators are part of our ordinary course business activities. If we are unable to respond effectively to regulatory examinations, our business and financial conditions may be adversely affected. For example, our January 2015 consent order with the CA DBO arose out of an alleged failure to respond adequately to requests from the CA DBO as part of a routine regulatory examination. In addition, we receive various escalated borrower complaints and inquiries from our state and federal regulators and state Attorneys General and are required to respond within the time periods prescribed by such entities. If we fail to respond effectively and timely to regulatory examinations and escalations, legal action could be taken against us by such regulators and, as a result, we may incur fines or penalties or we could lose the licenses and approvals necessary to engage in our servicing and lending businesses. We could also suffer from reputational harm and become subject to private litigation.
The Dodd-Frank Act has significantly impacted our business and we expect it to continue to do so. In addition, new rules and regulations or more stringent interpretations of existing rules and regulations by the CFPB could result in increased compliance costs and, potentially, regulatory action against us.
We have devoted substantial resources and incurred significant compliance costs responding to the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, including CFPB rules. We expect to continue to do so. If we fail to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, including CFPB rules and subsequent amendments, we could be subject to financial penalties, restrictions on our business activities, private litigation, breaches of our contractual obligations to counterparties (including our debt agreements) and adverse actions by the GSEs or other entities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, as discussed in greater detail above, we are currently defending ourselves against a lawsuit brought by the CFPB alleging failures to comply with federal consumer finance laws relating to our servicing business.
Private legal proceedings and related costs alleging failures to comply with applicable laws or regulatory requirements could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We are subject to various pending private legal proceedings, including purported class actions, challenging whether certain of our loan servicing practices and other aspects of our business comply with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. For example, we are currently a defendant in various matters alleging that (1) certain fees imposed on borrowers relating to payment processing, payment facilitation, or payment convenience violate state laws similar to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (2) certain fees we assess on borrowers are marked up improperly in violation of applicable state and federal law,

18


(3) we breached fiduciary duties we purportedly owe to benefit plans due to the discretion we exercise in servicing certain securitized mortgage loans and (4) certain legacy mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. In the future, we are likely to become subject to other private legal proceedings alleging failures to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including putative class actions, in the ordinary course of our business. While we do not currently believe that the resolution of the vast majority of the legal proceedings we face will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations, we cannot express a view with respect to all of these proceedings. The outcome of any pending legal matter is never certain, and it is possible that adverse results in private legal proceedings could materially and adversely affect our financial results and operations. We have paid significant amounts to settle private legal proceedings in recent periods and paid significant amounts in legal and other costs in connection with defending ourselves in such proceedings. To the extent we are unable to avoid such costs in future periods, our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
Non-compliance with laws and regulations could lead to termination of servicing agreements or defaults under our debt agreements.
Most of our servicing agreements and debt agreements contain provisions requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. While the specific language in these agreements takes many forms and materiality qualifiers are often present, if we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we could be terminated as a servicer and defaults could be triggered under our debt agreements, which could materially and adversely affect our revenues, cash flows, liquidity, business and financial condition. We could also suffer reputational damage and trustees, lenders and other counterparties could cease wanting to do business with us.
If new laws and regulations lengthen foreclosure times or introduce new regulatory requirements regarding foreclosure procedures, our operating costs and liquidity requirements could increase and we could be subject to regulatory action.
When a mortgage loan that we service is in foreclosure, we are generally required to continue to advance delinquent principal and interest to the securitization trust and to make advances for delinquent taxes and insurance and foreclosure costs and the upkeep of vacant property in foreclosure to the extent that we determine that such amounts are recoverable. These servicing advances are generally recovered when the delinquency is resolved or upon liquidation. Regulatory actions that lengthen the foreclosure process will increase the amount of servicing advances that we are required to make, lengthen the time it takes for us to be reimbursed for such advances and increase the costs incurred during the foreclosure process. 
Increased regulatory scrutiny and new laws and procedures could cause us to adopt additional compliance measures and incur additional compliance costs in connection with our foreclosure processes. We may incur legal and other costs responding to regulatory inquiries or any allegation that we improperly foreclosed on a borrower. We could also suffer reputational damage and could be fined or otherwise penalized if we are found to have breached regulatory requirements.
If we fail to comply with the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rules, our business and operations could be materially and adversely affected and our plans to expand our lending business could be adversely impacted.
The TRID rules include requirements relating to consumer facing disclosure and waiting periods to allow consumers to reconsider committing to loans after receiving required disclosures. If we fail to comply with the TRID rules, we may be unable to sell loans that we originate or purchase, or we may be required to sell such loans at a discount compared to other loans. We also could be subject to repurchase or indemnification claims from purchasers of such loans, including the GSEs. Additionally, loans might stay on our warehouse lines for longer periods before sale, which would increase our liquidity needs, holding costs and interest expense. We could also be subject to regulatory actions or private lawsuits. 
In response to the TRID rules, we have implemented significant modifications and enhancements to our loan production processes and systems, and we continue to devote significant resources to TRID compliance. As regulatory guidance and enforcement and the views of the GSEs and other market participants such as warehouse loan lenders evolve, we may need to modify further our loan production processes and systems in order to adjust to evolution in the regulatory landscape and successfully operate our lending business. In such circumstances, if we are unable to make the necessary adjustments, our business and operations could be adversely affected and we may not be able to execute on our plans to grow our lending business. 
Failure to comply with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and related CFPB regulations could adversely impact our business.
HMDA requires financial institutions to report certain mortgage data in an effort to provide the regulators and the public with information that will help show whether financial institutions are serving the housing credit needs of the neighborhoods and communities in which they are located. The data points include information related to the loan applicant/borrower (e.g., age, ethnicity, race and credit score), the underwriting process, loan terms and fees, lender credits and interest rate, among others. The scope of the information available to the public could increase fair lending regulatory scrutiny and third-party plaintiff litigation, as the changes will expand the ability of regulators and third parties to compare a particular lender to its

19


peers in an effort to determine differences among lenders in certain demographic borrower populations. We have devoted, and will need to devote, significant resources to establishing systems and processes for complying with HMDA on an ongoing basis. If we are not successful in capturing and reporting the new HMDA data, and analyzing and correcting any adverse patterns, we could be exposed to regulatory actions and private litigation against us, we could suffer reputational damage and we could incur losses, any of which could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
As a participant in the now ended HAMP program, we are subject to review by SIGTARP, which could adversely affect our business, reputation, and financial condition.
A significant portion of Ocwen’s loan modifications in recent years have been in connection with the now ended HAMP program. SIGTARP has indicated that it is assessing potential unlawful conduct by servicers in the HAMP program. In May 2017, we received a subpoena from SIGTARP requesting various documents and information relating to Ocwen’s participation in the HAMP program, and we have been providing documents and information in response to that subpoena. If SIGTARP were to allege breaches of the HAMP program, such allegations could be referred to the enforcement authorities within the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice and if such enforcement authorities elected to take action against Ocwen, it could adversely affect our business, reputation and financial condition, regardless of the outcome of any such enforcement action.
There may be material changes to the laws, regulations, rules or practices applicable to reverse mortgage programs sponsored by HUD and FHA, and securitized by Ginnie Mae, which could materially and adversely affect us and the reverse mortgage industry as a whole.
The reverse mortgage industry is largely dependent upon rules and regulations implemented by HUD, FHA and Ginnie Mae. There can be no guarantee that HUD/FHA will retain Congressional authorization to continue the HECM program, which provides FHA government insurance for qualifying HECM loans, or that they will not make material changes to the laws, regulations, rules or practices applicable to reverse mortgage programs. For example, HUD previously implemented certain lending limits for the HECM program, and added credit-based underwriting criteria designed to assess a borrower’s ability and willingness to satisfy future tax and insurance obligations. In addition, Ginnie Mae’s participation in the reverse mortgage industry may be subject to economic and political changes that cannot be predicted. Any of the aforementioned circumstances could materially and adversely affect the performance of our reverse mortgage business and the value of our common stock.
Regulators continue to be active in the reverse mortgage space, including due to the perceived susceptibility of older borrowers to be influenced by deceptive or misleading marketing activities. Regulators have also focused on appraisal practices because reverse mortgages are largely dependent on collateral valuation. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations relating to the origination of reverse mortgages, we could be subject to adverse regulatory actions, including potential fines, penalties or sanctions, and our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Violations of predatory lending and/or servicing laws could negatively affect our business.
Various federal, state and local laws have been enacted that are designed to discourage predatory lending and servicing practices. The federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in residential loans that have mortgage rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain additional disclosures prior to origination. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases impose restrictions and requirements greater than are those in HOEPA. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain residential loans, including loans that are not classified as “high cost” loans under HOEPA or other applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefits test with respect to the related borrower. A failure by us to comply with these laws, to the extent we originate, service or acquire residential loans that are non-compliant with HOEPA or other predatory lending or servicing laws, could subject us, as an originator or a servicer, or as an assignee, in the case of acquired loans, to monetary penalties and could result in the borrowers rescinding the affected loans. Lawsuits have been brought in various states making claims against originators, servicers and assignees of high cost loans for violations of state law. Named defendants in these cases have included numerous participants within the secondary mortgage market. If we are found to have violated predatory or abusive lending laws, defaults could be declared under our debt or servicing agreements, we could suffer reputational damage, and we could incur losses, any of which could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Failure to comply with FHA underwriting guidelines could adversely impact our business.
We must comply with FHA underwriting guidelines in order to successfully originate FHA loans. If we fail to do so, we may not be able collect on FHA insurance. In addition, we could be subject to allegations of violations of the False Claims Act asserting that we submitted claims for FHA insurance on loans that had not been underwritten in accordance with FHA underwriting guidelines. If we are found to have violated FHA underwriting guidelines, we could face regulatory penalties and

20


damages in litigation, suffer reputational damage, and we could incur losses due to an inability to collect on such insurance, any of which could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Failure to comply with United States and foreign laws and regulations applicable to our global operations could have an adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
As a business with a global workforce, we need to ensure that our activities, including those of our foreign operations, comply with applicable United States and foreign laws and regulations. Various states have implemented regulations which specifically restrict the ability to perform certain servicing and originations functions offshore and, from time to time, various state regulators have scrutinized the operations of our foreign subsidiaries. For example, as previously disclosed, in 2016, two of our foreign subsidiaries entered into a Consent Order with the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions relating to the activities of those entities in Washington State under the Washington Consumer Loan Act. Our failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could, among other things, result in restrictions on our operations, loss of licenses, fines, penalties or reputational damage and have an adverse effect on our business.
Failure to comply with the S.A.F.E. Act could adversely impact our business.
The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (the S.A.F.E. Act) requires the individual licensing and registration of those engaged in the business of loan origination. The S.A.F.E. Act is designed to improve accountability on the part of loan originators, combat fraud and enhance consumer protections by encouraging states to establish a national licensing system and minimum qualification requirements for applicants. Thus, Ocwen must ensure proper licensing for all employees who participate in certain specified loan origination activities. Failure to comply with the S.A.F.E. Act licensing requirements could adversely impact Ocwen’s origination business.
Risks Related to Our Financial Performance, Financing Our Business, Liquidity and Net Worth and the Economy
Our strategic plan to return to profitability may not be successful.
We are facing certain challenges and uncertainties that could have significant adverse effects on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. The ability of management to appropriately address these challenges and uncertainties in a timely manner is critical to our ability to operate our business successfully.
Historical losses have significantly eroded stockholders’ equity and weakened our financial condition. We have established a set of key initiatives to achieve our objective of returning to sustainable profitability in the shortest timeframe possible within an appropriate risk and compliance environment. First, we must expand our originations activities in our lending business and acquisitions of MSRs that are prudent and well-executed with appropriate financial return targets to replenish and grow our servicing portfolio. Second, we must re-engineer our cost structure to go beyond eliminating redundant costs through the integration process and establish continuous cost improvement as a core strength. Third, we must manage our balance sheet to ensure adequate liquidity, finance our ongoing business needs and provide a solid platform for executing on our other key business initiatives. Finally, we must fulfill our regulatory commitments and resolve our remaining legal and regulatory matters on satisfactory terms.
There can be no assurance that we will successfully execute on these initiatives, or that even if we do execute on these initiatives we will be able to return to profitability. In addition to successful operational execution of our key initiatives, our success will also depend on market conditions and other factors outside of our control, including continued access to capital. If we continue to experience losses, our share price, business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
If we are unable to obtain sufficient capital to meet the financing requirements of our business, or if we fail to comply with our debt agreements, our business, financing activities, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected.
Our business requires substantial amounts of capital and our financing strategy includes the use of leverage. During 2019, total leverage increased significantly relative to prior periods and we may increase our leverage further during 2020 as we execute on our business initiatives, including investing in owned MSRs to replenish portfolio runoff. Accordingly, our ability to finance our operations and repay maturing obligations rests in large part on our ability to continue to borrow money at reasonable rates. If we are unable to maintain adequate financing, or other sources of capital are not available, we could be forced to suspend, curtail or reduce our revenue generating objectives, which could harm our results of operations, liquidity, financial condition and business prospects. Our ability to borrow money is affected by a variety of factors including:
•
limitations imposed on us by existing debt agreements that contain restrictive covenants that may limit our ability to raise additional debt;
•
credit market conditions;
•
the strength of the lenders from whom we borrow;
•
lenders’ perceptions of us or our sector;

21


•
corporate credit and servicer ratings from rating agencies; and
•
limitations on borrowing under our MSR and advance facilities and mortgage loan warehouse facilities due to structural features in these facilities and the amount of eligible collateral that is pledged.
In addition, our advance facilities are revolving facilities, and in a typical monthly cycle, we repay a portion of the borrowings under these facilities from collections. During the remittance cycle, which starts in the middle of each month, we depend on our lenders to provide the cash necessary to make the advances that we are required to make as servicer. If one or more of these lenders were to restrict our ability to access these revolving facilities or were to fail, we may not have sufficient funds to meet our obligations. We typically require significantly more liquidity to meet our advance funding obligations than our available cash on hand.
Our advance financing facilities are comprised of (i) revolving notes issued to large financial institutions that generally have a revolving period of less than two years, and (ii) term notes issued to institutional investors with one-, two- and three-year periods. At December 31, 2019, we had $679.1 million outstanding under these facilities. The revolving periods for variable funding notes with a total maximum borrowing capacity of $260.0 million end in 2020.
In the event we are unable to renew, replace or extend the revolving period of one or more of these advance financing facilities, we would no longer have access to available borrowing capacity and repayment of the outstanding balances on the revolving and term notes must begin at the end of the applicable revolving period and end of the term, respectively. In addition, we use mortgage loan warehouse facilities to fund newly originated loans on a short-term basis until they are sold to secondary market investors, including GSEs or other third-party investors. Currently, our master repurchase and participation agreements for financing new loan originations generally have 364‑day terms, and similar to the revolving notes in the advance financing facilities, they are typically renewed, replaced or extended annually. At December 31, 2019, we had $332.2 million outstanding under these warehouse financing arrangements, all under agreements maturing in 2020.
In 2019, we entered into three separate MSR financing arrangements related to loans we service for (i) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (ii) Ginnie Mae, and (iii) private investors (PLS MSRs). The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae facilities were provided through bank commitments and had total capacity of $300.0 million and $100.0 million and borrowed amounts of $147.7 million and $72.3 million, respectively at December 31, 2019. The PLS MSR financing was issued as an amortizing note structure to capital markets investors with an initial principal amount of $100.0 million. The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae facilities terminate in June 2020 and November 2021, respectively and the PLS MSR facility matures in May 2022. MSR financing structures have become more common in recent years and investor appetite has evolved in both the bank and capital markets. As a result, MSR financing has become a lower cost funding alternative to corporate loans and bonds.  Despite these positive developments, MSR financing is not as readily available as secured match funded facilities for servicing advances and whole loans via warehouse facilities. In addition, MSR financing may require a higher level of issuer scrutiny despite being principally an asset-based financing structure. 
Our MSR financing facilities provide funding based on an advance rate of MSR value that is subject to periodic mark-to-market valuation adjustments. In the normal course, MSR value is expected to decline over time due to run off of the loan balances in our servicing portfolio. As a result, we anticipate having to repay a portion of our MSR debt over a given time period. The requirements to repay MSR debt including those due to unfavorable fair value adjustment may require us to allocate a substantial amount of our available liquidity or future cash flows to meet these requirements. To the extent we are unable to generate sufficient cash flows from operations to meet these requirements, we may be more constrained to invest in our business and fund other obligations, and our business, financing activities, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected. 
We currently plan to renew, replace or extend all of the above debt agreements consistent with our historical experience. There can be no assurance that we will be able to renew, replace or extend all our debt agreements on appropriate terms or at all and, if we fail to do so, we may not have adequate sources of funding for our business.
Our debt agreements contain various qualitative and quantitative covenants, including financial covenants, covenants to operate in material compliance with applicable laws, monitoring and reporting obligations and restrictions on our ability to engage in various activities, including but not limited to incurring additional debt, paying dividends, repurchasing or redeeming capital stock, transferring assets or making loans, investments or acquisitions. As a result of the covenants to which we are subject, we may be limited in the manner in which we conduct our business and may be limited in our ability to engage in favorable business activities or raise additional capital to finance future operations or satisfy future liquidity needs. In addition, breaches or events that may result in a default under our debt agreements include, among other things, noncompliance with our covenants, nonpayment of principal or interest, material misrepresentations, the occurrence of a material adverse effect or change, insolvency, bankruptcy, certain material judgments and changes of control. Covenants and defaults of this type are commonly found in debt agreements such as ours. Certain of these covenants and defaults are open to subjective interpretation and, if our interpretation were contested by a lender, a court may ultimately be required to determine compliance or lack thereof. In addition, our debt agreements generally include cross default provisions such that a default under one agreement

22


could trigger defaults under other agreements. If we fail to comply with our debt agreements and are unable to avoid, remedy or secure a waiver of any resulting default, we may be subject to adverse action by our lenders, including termination of further funding, acceleration of outstanding obligations, enforcement of liens against the assets securing or otherwise supporting our obligations and other legal remedies.
An actual or alleged default under any of our debt agreements, negative ratings action by a rating agency (including as a result of our increased leverage or erosion of net worth), the perception of financial weakness, an adverse action by a regulatory authority or GSE, a lengthening of foreclosure timelines or a general deterioration in the economy that constricts the availability of credit may increase our cost of funds and make it difficult for us to renew existing credit facilities or obtain new lines of credit. Any or all the above could have an adverse effect on our business, financing activities, financial condition and results of operations.
We may be unable to obtain sufficient servicer advance financing necessary to meet the financing requirements of our business, which could adversely affect our liquidity position and result in a loss of servicing rights.
We currently fund a substantial portion of our servicing advance obligations through our servicing advance facilities. Under normal market conditions, mortgage servicers typically have been able to renew or refinance these facilities. However, market conditions or lenders’ perceptions of us at the time of any renewal or refinancing may mean that we are unable to renew or refinance our advance financing facilities or obtain additional facilities on favorable terms or at all.
If we fail to satisfy minimum net worth and liquidity requirements established by regulators, GSEs, Ginnie Mae, lenders, or other counterparties, our business, financing activities, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
As a result of our servicing and loan origination activities, we are subject to minimum net worth and liquidity requirements established by state regulators, GSEs, Ginnie Mae, lenders, and other counterparties. We have been incurring losses for the last five years, which has eroded our net worth. In addition, we must structure our business so each subsidiary satisfies the net worth and liquidity requirements applicable to it, which can be challenging.
The minimum net worth and liquidity requirements to which our licensed entities are subject vary by state and type of license. We must also satisfy the minimum net worth and liquidity requirements of the GSEs and Ginnie Mae in order to maintain our approved status with such agencies and the minimum net worth and liquidity requirements set forth in our agreements with our lenders.
Minimum net worth requirements and liquidity are generally calculated using specific adjustments that may require interpretation or judgment. Changes to these adjustments have the potential to significantly affect net worth and liquidity calculations and imperil our ability to satisfy future minimum net worth and liquidity requirements. We believe our licensed entities were in compliance with all of their minimum net worth requirements at December 31, 2019. However, it is possible that regulators could disagree with our calculations, and one state regulator has disagreed with our calculation for a prior year period; we have discussed the matter with the regulator, including why we believe we are in compliance with the applicable net worth requirements. If we fail to satisfy minimum net worth requirements, absent a waiver or other accommodation, we could lose our licenses or have other regulatory action taken against us, we could lose our ability to sell and service loans to or on behalf of the GSEs or Ginnie Mae, or it could trigger a default under our debt agreements. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financing activities, financial condition or results of operations.
We use estimates in measuring or determining the fair value of the majority of our assets and liabilities. If our estimates prove to be incorrect, we may be required to write down the value of these assets or write up the value of these liabilities, which could adversely affect our earnings.
Our ability to measure and report our financial position and operating results is influenced by the need to estimate the impact or outcome of future events based on information available at the time of the financial statements. An accounting estimate is considered critical if it requires that management make assumptions about matters that were highly uncertain at the time the accounting estimate was made. If actual results differ from our judgments and assumptions, then it may have an adverse impact on the results of operations and cash flows.
Fair value is estimated based on a hierarchy that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs. Observable inputs are inputs that reflect the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances. The fair value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques into three broad levels whereby the highest priority is given to Level 1 inputs and the lowest to Level 3 inputs.

23


At December 31, 2019, 77% and 70% of our consolidated total assets and liabilities are measured at fair value, respectively, on a recurring and nonrecurring basis, 97% and 100% of which are considered Level 3 valuations, including our MSR portfolio. Our largest Level 3 asset and liability carried at fair value on a recurring basis is Loans held for investment - reverse mortgages and the related secured financing. We pool home equity conversion mortgages (reverse mortgages) into Ginnie Mae Home Equity Conversion Mortgage-Backed Securities (HMBS). Because the securitization of reverse mortgage loans do not qualify for sale accounting, we account for these transfers as secured financings and classify the transferred reverse mortgages as Loans held for investment - reverse mortgages and recognize the related Financing liabilities. Holders of HMBS have no recourse against our assets, except for standard representations and warranties and our contractual obligations to service the reverse mortgages and HMBS.
We estimate the fair value of our assets and liabilities utilizing assumptions that we believe are appropriate and are used by market participants. We generally engage third party valuation experts to support our fair value determination for Level 3 assets and liabilities. The methodology used to estimate these values is complex and uses asset- and liability-specific data and market inputs for assumptions including interest and discount rates, collateral status and expected future performance. If these assumptions prove to be inaccurate, if market conditions change or if errors are found in our models, the value of certain of our assets may decrease, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, including through negative impacts on our ability to satisfy minimum net worth and liquidity covenants.
Valuations are highly dependent upon the reasonableness of our assumptions and the predictability of the relationships that drive the results of our valuation methodologies. If changes to interest rates or other factors cause prepayment speeds to increase more than estimated, delinquency and default levels are higher than anticipated or financial market illiquidity is greater than anticipated, we may be required to adjust the value of certain assets or liabilities, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We are exposed to liquidity, interest rate and foreign currency exchange risks.
We are exposed to liquidity risk primarily because of the highly variable daily cash requirements to support our servicing business, including the requirement to make advances pursuant to our servicing agreements and the process of collecting and applying recoveries of advances. We are also exposed to liquidity risk due to potential accelerated repayment of our debt depending on the performance of the underlying collateral, including the fair value of MSRs, and certain covenants, among other factors. We are also exposed to liquidity and interest rate risk by our decision to originate and finance mortgage loans and sell mortgage loans into the secondary market. Further, as discussed below, the economic hedges that we have entered into in order to limit MSR fair value change exposure may include instruments that require margin, thereby leading to liquidity distributions should the hedge instrument lose value. In general, we finance our operations through operating cash flows and various other sources of funding, including match funded borrowing agreements, secured lines of credit and repurchase agreements.
We are exposed to interest rate risk to the degree that our interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice at different speeds, or on different bases, than our interest earning assets or when financed assets are not interest-bearing. Our servicing business is characterized by non-interest earning assets financed by interest-bearing liabilities. Servicing advances are among our more significant non-interest earning assets. At December 31, 2019, we had total advances and match funded advances of $1.1 billion. We are also exposed to interest rate risk because a portion of our advance financing and other outstanding debt at December 31, 2019 is variable rate. Rising interest rates may increase our interest expense. Earnings on float balances partially offset these higher funding costs. At December 31, 2019, we had no interest rate swaps in place to hedge our exposure to rising interest rates.
Our MSRs, which we carry at fair value, are subject to substantial interest rate risk, primarily because the mortgage loans underlying the servicing rights permit the borrowers to prepay the loans. A decrease in interest rates generally increases prepayment speeds and vice versa. As a result, the valuation assumptions for MSRs are highly correlated to changes across the yield curve. An interest rate decrease could result in an array of fair value changes, the severity of which would depend on several factors, including the magnitude of the change, whether the decrease is across specific rate tenors or a parallel change across the entire yield curve, and impact from market-side adjustments, among others. Beginning in September 2019, we implemented a hedging strategy using economic hedges (derivatives that do not qualify as hedges for accounting purposes) to partially offset the changes in fair value of our MSRs due to interest rate changes. However, as discussed below, there can be no assurance that our hedging strategy will be effective in partially mitigating our exposure to changes in fair value of our MSRs due to interest rate changes.
In our lending business, we are subject to interest rate and price risk on our pipeline (i.e., interest rate loan commitments (IRLCs) and mortgage loans held for sale) from the commitment date up until the date the commitment expires or the loan is sold into the secondary market. Generally, the fair value of the pipeline will decline in value when interest rates increase and will rise in value when interest rates decrease. Our interest rate exposure on our pipeline had previously been economically hedged with freestanding derivatives such as forward contracts. Beginning in September 2019, this exposure is no longer

24


individually hedged, but rather used as an offset to our MSR fair value exposure and managed as part of our MSR hedging strategy described above.
We are exposed to foreign currency exchange rate risk in connection with our investment in non-U.S. dollar currency operations to the extent that our foreign exchange positions remain unhedged. Our operations in the Philippines and India expose us to foreign currency exchange rate risk.
While we have established policies and procedures intended to identify, monitor and manage the risks described above, we cannot assure you that our risk management policies and procedures will be effective. Further, such policies and procedures are not designed to mitigate or eliminate all of the risks we face. As a result, these risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our hedging strategy may not be successful in partially mitigating our exposure to interest rate risk.
Our hedging strategy may not be as effective as desired due to the actual performance of an MSR differing from the expected performance. While we actively track the actual performance of our MSRs across rate change environments, there is potential for our economic hedges to underperform. The underperformance may be a result of various factors, including the following: available hedge instruments have a different profile than the underlying asset, the duration of the hedge is different from the MSR, the convexity of the hedge is not proportional to the valuation change of the MSR asset, the counterparty with which we have traded has failed to deliver under the terms of the contract, or we fail to renew the hedge position in a timely or efficient manner.
Unexpected changes in market rates or secondary liquidity may have a materially adverse impact on the cash flow or operating performance of the Company. The expected hedge coverage profiled may not correlate to the asset as desired, resulting in poorer performance than had we not hedged at all. In addition, hedging strategies involve transaction and other costs. We cannot be assured that our hedging strategy and the derivatives that we use will adequately offset the risks of interest rate volatility or that our hedging transactions will not result in or magnify losses.
GSE and Ginnie Mae initiatives and other actions may affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Due to the significant role that the GSEs play in the secondary mortgage market, new initiatives and other actions that they may implement could become prevalent in the mortgage servicing industry generally. To the extent that FHFA and/or the GSEs implement reforms that materially affect the market not only for conventional and/or government-insured loans but also the non-qualifying loan markets, such reforms could have a material adverse effect on the creation of new MSRs, the economics or performance of any MSRs that we acquire, servicing fees that we can charge and costs that we incur to comply with new servicing requirements.
In addition, our ability to generate revenues through mortgage loan sales to institutional investors depends to a significant degree on programs administered by the GSEs, Ginnie Mae, and others that facilitate the issuance of MBS in the secondary market. These entities play a critical role in the residential mortgage industry and we have significant business relationships with many of them. If it is not possible for us to complete the sale or securitization of certain of our mortgage loans due to changes in GSE and Ginnie Mae programs, we may lack liquidity to continue to fund mortgage loans and our revenues and margins on new loan originations would be materially and negatively impacted.
Our plans to acquire MSRs will require approvals and cooperation by the GSEs and Ginnie Mae. Should approval or cooperation be withheld, we would have difficulty meeting our MSR acquisition objectives.
There are various proposals that deal with the future of the GSEs, including with respect to their ownership and role in the mortgage market, as well as proposals to implement GSE reforms relating to borrowers, lenders and investors in the mortgage market. Thus, the long-term future of the GSEs remains uncertain. Any change in the ownership of the GSEs, or in their programs or role within the mortgage market, could materially and adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial position and results of operations.
An economic slowdown or a deterioration of the housing market could increase both interest expense on servicing advances and operating expenses and could cause a reduction in income from, and the value of, our servicing portfolio.
During any period in which a borrower is not making payments, we are required under most of our servicing agreements to advance our own funds to meet contractual principal and interest remittance requirements for investors, pay property taxes and insurance premiums and process foreclosures. We also advance funds to maintain, repair and market real estate properties on behalf of investors. Most of our advances have the highest standing and are “top of the waterfall” so that we are entitled to repayment from respective loan or REO liquidations proceeds before most other claims on these proceeds, and in the majority of cases, advances in excess of respective loan or REO liquidation proceeds may be recovered from pool level proceeds. Consequently, the primary impacts of an increase in advances are generally increased interest expense as we finance a large portion of servicing advance obligations and a decline in the fair value of MSRs as the projected funding cost of existing and future expected servicing advances is a component of the fair value of MSRs. Our liquidity is also negatively impacted because

25


we must fund the portion of our advance obligations that is not financed. Our liquidity would be more severely impacted if we were unable to continue to finance a large portion of servicing advance obligations.
Higher delinquencies also decrease the fair value of MSRs and increase our cost to service loans, as loans in default require more intensive effort to bring them current or manage the foreclosure process. An increase in delinquencies may delay the timing of revenue recognition because we recognize servicing fees as earned, which is generally upon collection of payments from borrowers or proceeds from REO liquidations. An increase in delinquencies also generally leads to lower balances in custodial and escrow accounts (float balances) and lower net earnings on custodial and escrow accounts (float earnings). Additionally, an increase in delinquencies in our GSE servicing portfolio will result in lower revenue because we collect servicing fees from GSEs only on performing loans.
Foreclosures are involuntary prepayments resulting in a reduction in UPB. This may also result in declines in the value of our MSRs.
Adverse economic conditions could also negatively impact our lending businesses. For example, declining home prices and increasing loan-to-value ratios may preclude many borrowers from refinancing their existing loans or obtaining new loans.
Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
A significant increase in prepayment speeds could adversely affect our financial results.
Prepayment speed is a significant driver of our business. Prepayment speed is the measurement of how quickly borrowers pay down the UPB of their loans or how quickly loans are otherwise brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. Prepayment speeds have a significant impact on our servicing fee revenues, our expenses and on the valuation of our MSRs as follows:
•
Revenue. If prepayment speeds increase, our servicing fees will decline more rapidly than anticipated because of the greater decrease in the UPB on which those fees are based. The reduction in servicing fees would be somewhat offset by increased float earnings because the faster repayment of loans will result in higher float balances that generate the float earnings. Conversely, decreases in prepayment speeds result in increased servicing fees but lead to lower float balances and float earnings.
•
Expenses. Faster prepayment speeds result in higher compensating interest expense, which represents the difference between the full month of interest we are required to remit in the month a loan pays off and the amount of interest we collect from the borrower for that month. Slower prepayment speeds also lead to lower compensating interest expense.
•
Valuation of MSRs. The fair value of MSRs is based on, among other things, projection of the cash flows from the related pool of mortgage loans. The expectation of prepayment speeds is a significant assumption underlying those cash flow projections from the perspective of market participants. Increases or decreases in interest rates have an impact on prepayment rates. If prepayment speeds were significantly greater than expected, the fair value of our MSRs, which we carry at fair value, could decrease. When the fair value of these MSRs decreases, we record a loss on fair value, which also has a negative impact on our financial results.

Operational Risks and Other Risks Related to Our Business
If we do not comply with our obligations under our servicing agreements or if others allege non-compliance, our business and results of operations may be harmed.
We have contractual obligations under the servicing agreements pursuant to which we service mortgage loans. Our non-Agency servicing agreements generally contain detailed provisions regarding servicing practices, reporting and other matters. In addition, Liberty and PMC are parties to seller/servicer agreements and/or subject to guidelines and regulations (collectively, seller/servicer obligations) with one or more of the GSEs, HUD, FHA, VA and Ginnie Mae. These seller/servicer obligations include financial covenants that include capital requirements related to tangible net worth, as defined by the applicable agency, an obligation to provide audited consolidated financial statements within 90 days of the applicable entity’s fiscal year end as well as extensive requirements regarding servicing, selling and other matters. To the extent that these requirements are not met or waived, the applicable agency may, at its option, utilize a variety of remedies including requirements to provide certain information or take actions at the direction of the applicable agency, requirements to deposit funds as security for our obligations, sanctions, suspension or even termination of approved seller/servicer status, which would prohibit future originations or securitizations of forward or reverse mortgage loans or servicing for the applicable agency.
Many of our servicing agreements require adherence to general servicing standards, and certain contractual provisions delegate judgment over various servicing matters to us. Our servicing practices, and the judgments that we make in our servicing of loans, could be questioned by parties to these agreements, such as GSEs, Ginnie Mae, trustees or master servicers, or by investors in the trusts which own the mortgage loans or other third parties. As a result, we could be required to repurchase mortgage loans, make whole or otherwise indemnify such mortgage loan investors or other parties. Advances that we have made could be unrecoverable. We could also be terminated as servicer or become subject to litigation or other claims seeking

26


damages or other remedies arising from alleged breaches of our servicing agreements. For example, we are currently involved in a dispute with a former subservicing client relating to alleged violations of our contractual agreements, including that we did not properly submit mortgage insurance and other claims for reimbursement. We are presently engaged in a dispute resolution process relating to these claims.  We are unable to predict the outcome of this dispute or the size of any loss we might incur. In addition, several trustees are currently defending themselves against claims by RMBS investors that the trustees failed to properly oversee mortgage servicers - including Ocwen - in the servicing of hundreds of trusts. Trustees subject to those suits have informed Ocwen that they may seek indemnification for losses they suffer as a result of the filings.
Any of the foregoing could have a significant negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if allegations against us lack merit, we may have to spend additional resources and devote additional management time to contesting such allegations, which would reduce the resources available to address, and the time management is able to devote to, other matters.
GSEs or Ginnie Mae may curtail or terminate our ability to sell, service or securitize newly originated loans to them.
As noted in the prior risk factor, if we do not comply with our seller/servicer obligations, the GSEs or Ginnie Mae may utilize a variety of remedies against us. Such remedies include curtailment of our ability to sell newly originated loans or even termination of our ability to sell, service or securitize such loans altogether. Any such curtailment or termination would likely have a material adverse impact on our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
A significant reduction in, or the total loss of, our remaining NRZ-related servicing would significantly impact our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
NRZ is our largest servicing client, accounting for 56% of the UPB in our servicing portfolio as of December 31, 2019. On February 20, 2020, we received a notice of termination from NRZ with respect to the legacy PMC subservicing agreement, which accounted for approximately 20% of the UPB of our servicing portfolio as of December 31, 2019. It is possible that NRZ could exercise its rights to terminate for convenience some or all of the legacy Ocwen servicing agreements. As of December 31, 2019, these agreements accounted for approximately 36.0% of our servicing portfolio.
In addition, under the legacy Ocwen agreements, any failure under a financial covenant could result in NRZ terminating Ocwen as subservicer under the subservicing agreements or in directing the transfer of servicing away from Ocwen under the Rights to MSRs agreements. Similarly, failure by Ocwen to meet operational requirements, including service levels, critical reporting and other obligations, could also result in termination or transfer for cause. In addition, if there is a change of control to which NRZ did not consent, NRZ could terminate for cause and direct the transfer of servicing away from Ocwen. A termination for cause and transfer of servicing could materially and adversely affect Ocwen’s business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
Further, under our Rights to MSRs agreements, in certain circumstances, NRZ has the right to sell its Rights to MSRs to a third-party and require us to transfer title to the related MSRs, subject to an Ocwen option to acquire at a price based on the winning third-party bid rather than selling to the third party. If NRZ sells its Rights to MSRs to a third party, the transaction can only be completed if the third-party buyer can obtain the necessary third-party consents to transfer the MSRs. NRZ also has the obligation to use reasonable efforts to encourage such third-party buyer to enter into a subservicing agreement with Ocwen. Ocwen may lose future compensation for subservicing, however, if no subservicing agreement is ultimately entered into with the third-party buyer.
Because of the large percentage of our servicing business that is represented by the legacy Ocwen agreements with NRZ that provide NRZ with the termination or transfer rights described above, our business, financial condition, results of operations would be significantly impacted if NRZ exercised all or a significant portion of these rights. If this were to occur, we anticipate that we would need to substantially restructure many aspects of our servicing business as well as the related corporate support functions to address our smaller servicing portfolio, which would likely be a complex and expensive undertaking. Such a restructuring of our operations could divert management attention and financial resources required to execute on other strategic objectives, which could delay or prevent our growth or otherwise negatively impact the execution of our plans to return to profitability. In addition, it is possible that the unwinding of all or a significant portion of our relationship may not occur in an orderly or timely manner, which could be disruptive and could result in us incurring additional costs or even in disagreements with NRZ relating to our respective rights and obligations.
More generally, if NRZ were to decline to continue doing business with us and we were unable to develop relationships with new servicing clients on a similar scale or otherwise acquire sufficient replacement servicing, our business, liquidity, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, if NRZ were to take actions to limit or terminate our relationship, that could impact perceptions of other servicing clients, lenders, GSEs, regulators or others, which could cause them to take actions that materially and adversely impact our business, liquidity, results of operations and financial condition.

27


We believe our remaining NRZ servicing will become increasingly unprofitable over time. If we are not successful in our actions to improve the profitability of our remaining NRZ servicing or to acquire additional profitable client relationships to offset the expected impact on our profitability, our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
During 2019, we completed an assessment of the cost-to-service and the profitability of the NRZ servicing portfolio. Based on this analysis, in the fourth quarter of 2019, we estimate that operating expenses, including direct servicing expenses and overhead allocation, exceeded the net revenue retained for the legacy Ocwen servicing agreements by approximately $7.0 million. This estimate excludes the benefits of the lump-sum payment amortization. The estimated loss for these subservicing agreements is partially driven by the declining revenue as the loan portfolio amortizes down without a corresponding reduction to our servicing cost over time. As performing loans in the legacy Ocwen servicing portfolio have run-off, delinquencies have remained high, resulting in a relatively elevated average cost per loan. Because the NRZ portfolio contains a high percentage of delinquent accounts, it has an inherently high level of potential operational and compliance risk and requires a disproportionately high level of operating staff, oversight support infrastructure and overhead which drives the elevated average cost per loan. While we are actively pursuing cost re-engineering initiatives to reduce our cost-to-service and our corporate overhead, we may be unsuccessful in reducing these costs to the level where the legacy Ocwen servicing is profitable during 2020 or beyond. We are also seeking to acquire, maintain and grow profitable client relationships that would offset any negative impact from legacy Ocwen servicing; however, we may not be successful in these efforts. While we have the ability to not to renew the legacy Ocwen agreements in certain circumstances, in such situations, we would not be entitled to termination fees that would help offset the restructuring and transition costs required to adjust our operations to a significantly smaller servicing portfolio. Consequently, absent a termination for convenience by NRZ, our most economically feasible alternative with respect to these agreements may be to continue to service an increasingly unprofitable portfolio, which could materially and adversely impact our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
If NRZ were to fail to comply with its servicing advance obligations under its agreements with us, it could materially and adversely affect us.
Under the Rights to MSRs agreements, NRZ is responsible for financing all servicing advance obligations in connection with the loans underlying the MSRs. At December 31, 2019, such servicing advances made by NRZ were approximately $704.2 million. However, under the Rights to MSRs structure, we are contractually required under our servicing agreements with the RMBS trusts to make the relevant servicing advances even if NRZ does not perform its contractual obligations to fund those advances. Therefore, if NRZ were unable to meet its advance financing obligations, we would remain obligated to meet any future advance financing obligations with respect to the loans underlying these Rights to MSRs, which could materially and adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition and servicing operations.
NRZ currently uses advance financing facilities to fund a substantial portion of the servicing advances that NRZ is contractually obligated to make pursuant to the Rights to MSRs agreements. Although we are not an obligor or guarantor under NRZ’s advance financing facilities, we are a party to certain of the facility documents as the entity performing the work of servicing the underlying loans on which advances are being financed. As such, we make certain representations, warranties and covenants, including representations and warranties in connection with our sale of advances to NRZ. If we were to make representations or warranties that were untrue or if we were otherwise to fail to comply with our contractual obligations, we could become subject to claims for damages or events of default under such facilities could be asserted.
Technology or process failures or employee misconduct could damage our business operations or reputation, harm our relationships with key stakeholders and lead to regulatory sanctions or penalties.
We are responsible for developing and maintaining sophisticated operational systems and infrastructure, which is challenging. As a result, operational risk is inherent in virtually all of our activities. In addition, the CFPB and other regulators have emphasized their focus on the importance of servicers’ and lenders’ systems and infrastructure operating effectively. If our systems and infrastructure fail to operate effectively, such failures could damage our business and reputation, harm our relationships with key stakeholders and lead to regulatory sanctions or penalties.
Our business is substantially dependent on our ability to process and monitor a large number of transactions, many of which are complex, across various parts of our business. These transactions often must adhere to the terms of a complex set of legal and regulatory standards, as well as the terms of our servicing and other agreements. In addition, given the volume of transactions that we process and monitor, certain errors may be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and rectified. For example, in the area of borrower correspondence, in 2014, problems were identified with our letter dating processes such that erroneously dated letters were sent to borrowers, which damaged our reputation and relationships with borrowers, regulators, important counterparties and other stakeholders. Because in an average month we mail over 2 million letters, a process problem such as erroneous letter dating has the potential to negatively affect many parts of our business and have widespread negative implications.

28


We are similarly dependent on our employees. We could be materially adversely affected if an employee or employees, acting alone or in concert with non-affiliated third parties, causes a significant operational break-down or failure, either because of human error or where an individual purposefully sabotages or fraudulently manipulates our operations or systems, including by means of cyberattack or denial-of-service attack. In addition to direct losses from such actions, we could be subject to regulatory sanctions or suffer harm to our reputation, financial condition, customer relationships, and ability to attract future customers or employees. Employee misconduct could prompt regulators to allege or to determine based upon such misconduct that we have not established adequate supervisory systems and procedures to inform employees of applicable rules or to detect and deter violations of such rules. It is not always possible to deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent misconduct may not be effective in all cases. Misconduct by our employees, or even unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, could result in a material adverse effect on our reputation and our business.
Third parties with which we do business could also be sources of operational risk to us, including risks relating to break-downs or failures of such parties’ own systems or employees. Any of these occurrences could diminish our ability to operate one or more of our businesses or lead to potential liability to clients, reputational damage or regulatory intervention. We could also be required to take legal action against or replace third-party vendors, which could be costly, involve a diversion of management time and energy and lead to operational disruptions. Any of these occurrences could materially adversely affect us.
We are dependent on Black Knight, Altisource and other vendors for much of our technology, business process outsourcing and other services.
Our vendor relationships subject us to a variety of risks. We have significant exposure to third-party risks, as we are dependent on vendors, including, Black Knight and Altisource, for a number of key services.
We use the Black Knight MSP servicing system pursuant to a seven-year agreement with Black Knight, and we are highly dependent on the successful functioning of it to operate our loan servicing business effectively and in compliance with our regulatory and contractual obligations. It would be difficult, costly and complex to transfer all of our loans to another servicing system in the event Black Knight failed to perform under its agreements with us and any such transfer would take considerable time. Any such transfer would also likely be subject us to considerable scrutiny from regulators, GSEs, Ginnie Mae and other counterparties.
Ocwen has entered into various long-term agreements with Altisource, including a Services Agreement under which Altisource provides various services, such as property valuation services, property preservation and inspection services and title services, among other things. Previously, Ocwen’s servicing system ran on an information technology system that we licensed under agreements with Altisource.
In February 2019, Ocwen and Altisource signed a Binding Term Sheet, which among other things, confirmed Altisource’s cooperation with the de-boarding of loans from Altisource’s REALServicing servicing system to Black Knight’s MSP servicing system. In addition, Ocwen and Altisource entered into a letter agreement confirming that, except in relation to Ocwen’s transfer off of the REALServicing technology beginning in February 2019 or termination of the REALServicing statement of work, each party reserves its rights and remedies in the event of any disputes between them. While the Binding Term Sheet does not restrict Ocwen’s rights to sell MSRs in any way, the letter agreement specifically includes a reservation of each party’s rights to assert damage claims against the other party regarding such transactions including any transfer by Ocwen to NRZ (or its affiliates) or any third party of the rights to designate a vendor. Ocwen does not believe its agreements with Altisource restrict Ocwen’s rights to sell MSRs or restrict Ocwen from allowing an owner of MSRs, or owner of the economics thereto, the right to designate vendors. As such, Ocwen believes any asserted claims by Altisource against Ocwen arising from Ocwen’s sale of MSRs or related to the rights to designate a vendor to a third party, would be without merit and we have so informed Altisource. However, if Altisource were to assert such claims against us, such disputes could cause us to incur costs, divert the attention of management, and potentially disrupt our operations which rely on Altisource-provided services, regardless of whether such claims were ultimately resolved in our favor.
If either Black Knight or Altisource were to fail to properly fulfill its contractual obligations to us, including through a failure to provide services at the required level to maintain and support our systems, our business and operations would suffer. In addition, if Black Knight fails to develop and maintain its technology so as to provide us with an effective and competitive servicing system, our business could suffer. Similarly, we are reliant on other vendors for the proper maintenance and support of our technological systems and our business and operations would suffer if these vendors do not perform as required. If our vendors do not adequately maintain and support our systems, including our servicing systems, loan originations and financial reporting systems, our business and operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Altisource and other vendors supply us with other services in connection with our business activities such as property preservation and inspection services and valuation services. In the event that a vendor’s activities do not comply with the applicable servicing criteria, we could be exposed to liability as the servicer and it could negatively impact our relationships with our servicing clients, borrowers or regulators, among others. In addition, if our current vendors were to stop providing services to us on acceptable terms, we may be unable to procure alternatives from other vendors in a timely and efficient

29


manner and on acceptable terms, or at all. Further, we may incur significant costs to resolve any such disruptions in service and this could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In addition to our reliance on the vendors discussed above, our business is reliant on a number of technological vendors that provide services such as integrated cloud applications and financial institutions that provide essential banking services on a daily basis. Even short-terms interruptions in the services provided by these vendors and financial institutions could be disruptive to our business and cause us financial loss. Significant or prolonged disruptions in the ability of these companies to provide services to us could have a material adverse impact on our operations.
We have undergone and continue to undergo significant change to our technology infrastructure and business processes. Failure to adequately update our systems and processes could harm our ability to run our business and adversely affect our results of operations.
We are currently making, and will continue to make, technology investments and process improvements to improve or replace the information processes and systems that are key to managing our business, to improve our compliance management system, and to reduce costs. Additionally, as part of the transition to Black Knight MSP and the integration of our information processes and systems with PHH, we have undergone and continue to undergo significant changes to our technology infrastructure and business processes. Failure to select the appropriate technology investments, or to implement them correctly and efficiently, could have a significant negative impact on our operations.
Disagreements with vendors, service providers or other contractual counterparties could materially and adversely affect our business, financing activities, financial condition or results of operations.
We are dependent on Black Knight, Altisource and other vendors and service providers to operate our business effectively and in compliance with applicable regulatory and contractual obligations and on banks, NRZ and other financing sources to finance our business. Certain provisions of the agreements underlying our relationships with our vendors, service providers, financing sources and other contractual counterparties could be open to subjective interpretation. Disagreements with these counterparties, including disagreements over contract interpretation, could lead to business disruptions or could result in litigation or arbitration or mediation proceedings, any of which could be expensive and divert senior management’s attention from other matters. While we have been able to resolve disagreements with these counterparties in the past, if we were unable to resolve a disagreement, a court, arbitrator or mediator might be required to resolve the matter and there can be no assurance that the outcome of a material disagreement with a contractual counterparty would not materially and adversely affect our business, financing activities, financial condition or results of operations.
Cybersecurity breaches or system failures may interrupt or delay our ability to provide services to our customers, expose our business and our customers to harm and otherwise adversely affect our operations.
Disruptions and failures of our systems or those of our vendors may interrupt or delay our ability to provide services to our customers, expose us to remedial costs and reputational damage, and otherwise adversely affect our operations. The secure transmission of confidential information over the Internet and other electronic distribution and communication systems is essential to our maintaining consumer confidence in certain of our services. We have programs in place to detect and respond to security incidents. However, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently and may be difficult to detect for long periods of time, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventive measures. While none of the cybersecurity incidents that we have experienced to date have had a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition or operations, we cannot assure that future incidents will not so impact us.
Security breaches, computer viruses, cyberattacks, hacking and other acts of vandalism are increasing in frequency and sophistication, and could result in a compromise or breach of the technology that we use to protect our borrowers’ personal information and transaction data and other information that we must keep secure. Our financial, accounting, data processing or other operating systems and facilities (or those of our vendors) may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, such as a cyberattack, a spike in transaction volume or unforeseen catastrophic events, potentially resulting in data loss and adversely affecting our ability to process transactions or otherwise operate our business. If one or more of these events occurs, this could potentially jeopardize data integrity or confidentiality of information processed and stored in, or transmitted through, our computer systems and networks. Any failure, interruption or breach in our cyber security could result in reputational harm, disruption of our customer relationships, or an inability to originate and service loans and otherwise operate our business. Further, any of these cyber security and operational risks could expose us to lawsuits by customers for identity theft or other damages resulting from the misuse of their personal information and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.
Regulators may impose penalties or require remedial action if they identify weaknesses in our systems, and we may be required to incur significant costs to address any identified deficiencies or to remediate any harm caused. A number of states

30


have specific reporting and other requirements with respect to cybersecurity in addition to applicable federal laws. For instance, the NY DFS Cybersecurity Regulation requires New York insurance companies, banks, and other regulated financial services institutions - including certain Ocwen entities licensed in the state of New York - to assess their cybersecurity risk profile. Regulated entities are required, among other things, to adopt the core requirements of a cybersecurity program, including a cybersecurity policy, effective access privileges, cybersecurity risk assessments, training and monitoring for all authorized users, and appropriate governance processes. This regulation also requires regulated entities to submit notices to the NY DFS of any security breaches or other cybersecurity events, and to certify their compliance with the regulation on an annual basis. In addition, consumers generally are concerned with security breaches and privacy on the Internet, and Congress or individual states could enact new laws regulating the use of technology in our business that could adversely affect us or result in significant compliance costs.
As part of our business, we may share confidential customer information and proprietary information with customers, vendors, service providers, and business partners. The information systems of these third parties may be vulnerable to security breaches as these third parties may not have appropriate security controls in place to protect the information we share with them. If our confidential information is intercepted, stolen, misused, or mishandled while in possession of a third party, it could result in reputational harm to us, loss of customer business, and additional regulatory scrutiny, and it could expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.
Damage to our reputation could adversely impact our financial results and ongoing operations.
Our ability to serve and retain customers and conduct business transactions with our counterparties could be adversely affected to the extent our reputation is damaged. Our failure to address, or to appear to fail to address, the various regulatory, operational and other challenges facing Ocwen could give rise to reputational risk that could cause harm to us and our business prospects. Reputational issues may arise from the following, among other factors:
•
negative news about Ocwen or the mortgage industry generally;
•
allegations of non-compliance with legal and regulatory requirements;
•
ethical issues, including alleged deceptive or unfair servicing or lending practices;
•
our practices relating to collections, foreclosures, property preservation, modifications, interest rate adjustments, loans impacted by natural disasters, escrow and insurance;
•
consumer privacy concerns;
•
consumer financial fraud;
•
data security issues related to our customers or employees;
•
cybersecurity issues and cyber incidents, whether actual, threatened, or perceived;
•
customer service or consumer complaints;
•
legal, reputational, credit, liquidity and market risks inherent in our businesses;
•
a downgrade of or negative watch warning on any of our servicer or credit ratings; and
•
alleged or perceived conflicts of interest.
The proliferation of social media websites as well as the personal use of social media by our employees and others, including personal blogs and social network profiles, also may increase the risk that negative, inappropriate or unauthorized information may be posted or released publicly that could harm our reputation or have other negative consequences, including as a result of our employees interacting with our customers in an unauthorized manner in various social media outlets. The failure to address, or the perception that we have failed to address, any of these issues appropriately could give rise to increased regulatory action, which could adversely affect our results of operations.
The industry in which we operate is highly competitive, and, to the extent we fail to meet these competitive challenges, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
We operate in a highly competitive industry that could become even more competitive as a result of economic, legislative, regulatory or technological changes. Competition to service mortgage loans and for mortgage loan originations comes primarily from commercial banks and savings institutions and non-bank lenders and mortgage servicers. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical and marketing resources, and lower funding costs. Further, our competitors that are national banks may also benefit from a federal exemption from certain state regulatory requirements that is applicable to depository institutions. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of revenue generating options (e.g., originating types of loans that we choose not to originate) and establish more favorable relationships than we can. With the proliferation of smartphones and technological changes enabling improved payment systems and cheaper data storage, newer market participants, often called “disruptors,” are reinventing aspects of the financial industry and capturing profit pools previously enjoyed by existing market participants. As a result, the lending industry could become even more competitive if new market participants are successful in capturing market share from existing market participants such as ourselves. Competition to service mortgage loans may result in lower margins. Because of the relatively limited number of servicing

31


clients, our failure to meet the expectations of any significant client could materially impact our business. Ocwen has suffered reputational damage as a result of our regulatory settlements and the associated scrutiny of our business. We believe this may have weakened our competitive position against both our bank and non-bank mortgage servicing competitors. These competitive pressures could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
We are highly dependent on an experienced senior management team, including our President and Chief Executive Officer, and the loss of the services of one or more of our senior officers could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, high turnover of management and non-management employees could harm our business.
We are highly dependent on an experienced management team. We do not maintain key man life insurance relating to our President and Chief Executive Officer, Glen A. Messina, or any of our other executive officers. The loss of the services of Mr. Messina or any of our other senior officers could have a material adverse effect on us. We could also be harmed by legal actions brought by former senior officers after they have ceased employment with Ocwen.
We have experienced elevated turnover among both management and non-management employees in recent years due, in large part, to the acquisition of PHH, our subsequent integration of the combined company’s business units, and our continued cost re-engineering plans, which may include further reductions in staffing levels and in the proportion of our workforce based in the U.S. While planned departures form part of our plan to capture acquisition synergies, there is a risk that employee departures, even if planned, could lead to operational disruptions, loss of important institutional knowledge or other adverse impacts on our business.
An inability to attract and retain qualified personnel could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to identify, attract and retain highly skilled servicing, lending, finance, risk, compliance and technical personnel. We face intense competition for qualified individuals from numerous financial services and other companies, some of which have greater resources, better recent financial performance, fewer regulatory challenges and better reputations than we do. If we were to be unable to attract and retain the qualified personnel we need to succeed, our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer.
We have operations in India and the Philippines that could be adversely affected by changes in the political or economic stability of these countries or by government policies in India, the Philippines or the U.S.
Approximately 3,400, or 64%, of our employees as of December 31, 2019 are located in India. A significant change in India’s economic liberalization and deregulation policies could adversely affect business and economic conditions in India generally and our business in particular. The political or regulatory climate in the U.S. or elsewhere also could change so that it would not be lawful or practical for us to use international operations in the manner in which we currently use them. For example, changes in regulatory requirements could require us to curtail our use of lower-cost operations in India to service our businesses. If we had to curtail or cease our operations in India and transfer some or all of these operations to another geographic area, we could incur significant transition costs as well as higher future overhead costs that could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. 
We may need to increase the levels of our employee compensation more rapidly than in the past to retain talent in India. Unless we can continue to enhance the efficiency and productivity of our employees, wage increases in the long-term may negatively impact our financial performance.
Political activity or other changes in political or economic stability in India could affect our ability to operate our business effectively. For example, political protests disrupted our Indian operations in multiple cities for a number of days during 2018. While we have implemented and maintain business continuity plans to reduce the disruption such events cause to our critical operations, we cannot guarantee that such plans will eliminate any negative impact on our business. Depending on the frequency and intensity of future occurrences of instability, our Indian operations could be significantly adversely affected.
Our operations in the Philippines are less substantial than our operations in India. However, they are still at risk of being affected by the same types of risks that affect our Indian operations. If they were to be so affected, our business could be materially and adversely affected.
There are a number of foreign laws and regulations that are applicable to our operations in India and the Philippines, including laws and regulations that govern licensing, employment, safety, taxes and insurance and laws and regulations that govern the creation, continuation and winding up of companies as well as the relationships between shareholders, our corporate entities, the public and the government in these countries. Non-compliance with the laws and regulations of India or the Philippines could result in (i) restrictions on our operations in these countries, (ii) fines, penalties or sanctions or (iii) reputational damage.

32


Our operations are vulnerable to disruptions resulting from severe weather events.
Our operations are vulnerable to disruptions resulting from severe weather events, including our operations in India, the Philippines, the USVI and Florida. Approximately 3,400, or 64%, of our employees as of December 31, 2019 are located in India. In recent years, severe weather events caused disruptions to our operations in India, the Philippines, and the USVI and we incurred expense resulting from the evacuation of personnel and from property damage. While we have implemented and maintain business continuity plans to reduce the disruption such events cause to our critical operations, we cannot guarantee that such plans will eliminate any negative impact on our business, including the cost of evacuation and repairs. Consequently, the occurrence of severe weather events in the future could have a significant adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
Pursuit of business or asset acquisitions exposes us to financial, execution and operational risks that could adversely affect us.
We are actively looking for opportunities to grow our business through acquisitions of businesses and assets. The performance of the businesses and assets we acquire through acquisitions may not match the historical performance of our other assets. Nor can we assure you that the businesses and assets we may acquire will perform at levels meeting our expectations. We may find that we overpaid for the acquired businesses or assets or that the economic conditions underlying our acquisition decision have changed. For example, in 2014, we recognized an impairment loss of the full carrying value of goodwill totaling $420.2 million, which was primarily associated with certain large acquisitions in prior years. It may also take several quarters or longer for us to fully integrate newly acquired business and assets into our business, during which period our results of operations and financial condition may be negatively affected. Further, certain one-time expenses associated with such acquisitions may have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition. We cannot assure you that acquisitions will not adversely affect our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition.
The risks associated with acquisitions include, among others:
•
unanticipated issues in integrating servicing, information, communications and other systems;
•
unanticipated incompatibility in servicing, lending, purchasing, logistics, marketing and administration methods;
•
unanticipated liabilities assumed from the acquired business;
•
not retaining key employees; and
•
the diversion of management’s attention from ongoing business concerns.
The acquisition integration process can be complicated and time consuming and could potentially be disruptive to borrowers of loans serviced by the acquired business. If the integration process is not conducted successfully and with minimal effect on the acquired business and its borrowers, we may not realize the anticipated economic benefits of particular acquisitions within our expected timeframe, or we could lose subservicing business or employees of the acquired business. In addition, integrating operations may involve significant reductions in headcount or the closure of facilities, which may be disruptive to operations and impair employee morale. Through acquisitions, we may enter into business lines in which we have not previously operated. Such acquisitions could require additional integration costs and efforts, including significant time from senior management. We may not be able to achieve the synergies we anticipate from acquired businesses, and we may not be able to grow acquired businesses in the manner we anticipate. In fact, the businesses we acquire could decrease in size, even if the integration process is successful.
Further, prices at which acquisitions can be made fluctuate with market conditions. We have experienced times during which acquisitions could not be made in specific markets at prices that we considered to be acceptable, and we expect that we will experience this condition in the future. In addition, to finance an acquisition, we may borrow funds, thereby increasing our leverage and diminishing our liquidity, or we could raise additional equity capital, which could dilute the interests of our existing shareholders.
The timing of closing of our acquisitions is often uncertain. We have in the past and may in the future experience delays in closing our acquisitions, or certain aspects of them. For example, we and the applicable seller are often required to obtain certain regulatory and contractual consents as a prerequisite to closing, such as the consents of GSEs, the FHFA, RMBS trustees or regulators. Accordingly, even if we and the applicable seller are efficient and proactive, the actions of third parties can impact the timing under which such consents are obtained. We and the applicable seller may not be able to obtain all the required consents, which may mean that we are unable to acquire all the assets that we wish to acquire. Regulators may have questions relating to aspects of our acquisitions and we may be required to devote time and resources responding to those questions. It is also possible that we will expend considerable resources in the pursuit of an acquisition that, ultimately, either does not close or is terminated.
Loan putbacks and related liabilities for breaches of representations and warranties regarding sold loans could adversely affect our business.

33


We have exposure to representation, warranty and indemnification obligations relating to our lending, sales and securitization activities, and in certain instances, we have assumed these obligations on loans we service. Our contracts with purchasers of originated loans generally contain provisions that require indemnification or repurchase of the related loans under certain circumstances. While the language in the purchase contracts varies, such contracts generally contain provisions that require us to indemnify purchasers of loans or repurchase such loans if:
•
representations and warranties concerning loan quality, contents of the loan file or loan underwriting circumstances are inaccurate;
•
adequate mortgage insurance is not secured within a certain period after closing;
•
a mortgage insurance provider denies coverage; or
•
there is a failure to comply, at the individual loan level or otherwise, with regulatory requirements.
Additionally, in one of the servicing contracts that Homeward acquired in 2008 from Freddie Mac involving non-prime mortgage loans, it assumed the origination representations and warranties even though it did not originate the loans.
We believe that many purchasers of residential mortgage loans are particularly aware of the conditions under which originators must indemnify or repurchase loans and under which such purchasers would benefit from enforcing any indemnification rights and repurchase remedies they may have.
At December 31, 2019, we had outstanding representation and warranty repurchase demands of $47.0 million UPB (285 loans).
If home values decrease, our realized loan losses from loan repurchases and indemnifications may increase as well. As a result, our liability for repurchases may increase beyond our current expectations. Depending on the magnitude of any such increase, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.
We originate and securitize reverse mortgages, which subjects us to risks that could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
We originate, securitize and service reverse mortgages and we have retained third parties to subservice the reverse mortgages. The reverse mortgage business is subject to substantial risks, including market, credit, interest rate, liquidity, operational, reputational and legal risks. Generally, a reverse mortgage is a loan available to seniors aged 62 or older that allows homeowners to borrow money against the value of their home. No repayment of the mortgage is required until a default event under the terms of the mortgage occurs, the borrower dies, the borrower moves out of the home or the home is sold. A decline in the demand for reverse mortgages may reduce the number of reverse mortgages we originate and adversely affect our ability to sell reverse mortgages in the secondary market. Although foreclosures involving reverse mortgages generally occur less frequently than forward mortgages, loan defaults on reverse mortgages leading to foreclosures may occur if borrowers fail to occupy the home as their primary residence, maintain their property or fail to pay taxes or home insurance premiums. A general increase in foreclosure rates may adversely impact how reverse mortgages are perceived by potential customers and thus reduce demand for reverse mortgages. Additionally, we could become subject to negative headline risk in the event that loan defaults on reverse mortgages lead to foreclosures or evictions of the elderly. The HUD HECM reverse mortgage program has in the past responded to scrutiny around similar issues by implementing rule changes, and may do so in the future. It is not possible to predict whether any such rule changes would negatively impact us. All of the above factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
If we are unable to fund our tail commitments or securitize our HECM loans (including tails), this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
We have originated and continue to service HECM loans under which the borrower has additional undrawn borrowing capacity in the form of undrawn lines of credit. We are obligated to fund future borrowings drawn on that capacity. As of December 31, 2019, our commitment to fund additional borrowing capacity was $1.5 billion. In addition, we are required to pay mortgage insurance premiums on behalf of HECM borrowers. We normally fund these obligations on a short-term basis using our cash resources, and regularly securitize these amounts (along with our servicing fees) through the issuance of tails. In December 2019, we entered into a revolving credit facility to fund HECM tail advances. However, to the extent our funding commitments exceed our borrowing capacity under this facility, or if we are unable to renew this 364-day facility on acceptable terms, we will be dependent on our cash resources to meet these commitments. If our cash resources are insufficient to fund these amounts and we are unable to fund them through the securitization of such tails, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
Our HMBS repurchase obligations may reduce our liquidity, and if we are unable to comply with such obligations, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
As an HMBS issuer, we assume the obligation to purchase loans out of the Ginnie Mae securitization pools once the outstanding principal balance of the related HECM is equal to or greater than 98% of the maximum claim amount (MCA repurchases). Active repurchased loans are assigned to HUD and payment is typically received within 60 days of repurchase.

34


HUD reimburses us for the outstanding principal balance on the loan up to the maximum claim amount. We bear the risk of exposure if the amount of the outstanding principal balance on a loan exceeds the maximum claim amount. Inactive repurchased loans (the borrower is deceased, no longer occupies the property or is delinquent on tax and insurance payments) are generally liquidated through foreclosure and subsequent sale of REO, with a claim filed with HUD for recoverable remaining principal and advance balances. The recovery timeline for inactive repurchased loans depends on various factors, including foreclosure status at the time of repurchase, state-level foreclosure timelines, and the post-foreclosure REO liquidation timeline. The timing and amount of our obligations with respect to MCA repurchases are uncertain as repurchase is dependent largely on circumstances outside of our control. MCA repurchases are expected to continue to increase due to the seasoning of our portfolio, and the increased flow of HECMs and REO that are reaching 98% of their maximum claim amount.
If we do not have sufficient liquidity to comply with our Ginnie Mae repurchase obligations, Ginnie Mae could take adverse action against us, including terminating us as an approved HMBS issuer. In addition, if we are required to purchase a significant number of loans with respect to which the outstanding principal balances exceed HUD’s maximum claim amount, we could be required to absorb significant losses on such loans following assignment to HUD or, in the case of inactive loans, liquidation and subsequent claim for HUD reimbursement. Further, during the periods in which HUD reimbursement is pending, our liquidity will be reduced by the repurchase amounts and we will have reduced resources with which to further other business objectives. For all of the foregoing reasons, our liquidity, business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely impacted by our HMBS repurchase obligations.
Liabilities relating to our past sales of Agency MSRs could adversely affect our business.
We have made representations, warranties and covenants relating to our past sales of Agency MSRs, including sales made by PHH before we acquired it. To the extent that we (including PHH prior to its acquisition by us) made inaccurate representations or warranties or if we fail otherwise to comply with our sale agreements, we could incur liability to the purchasers of these MSRs pursuant to the contractual provisions of these agreements.
Reinsuring risk through our captive reinsurance entity could adversely impact our results of operation and financial condition.
If our captive reinsurance entity incurs losses from a severe catastrophe or series of catastrophes, particularly in areas where a significant portion of the insured properties are located, claims that result could substantially exceed our expectations, which could adversely impact our results of operation and financial condition.
A significant portion of our business is in the states of California, Florida, Texas, New York and Pennsylvania, and our business may be significantly harmed by a slowdown in the economy or the occurrence of a natural disaster in those states.
A significant portion of the mortgage loans that we service and originate are secured by properties in California, Florida, Texas, New York and Pennsylvania. Any adverse economic conditions in these markets, including a downturn in real estate values, could increase loan delinquencies. Delinquent loans are more costly to service and require us to advance delinquent principal and interest and to make advances for delinquent taxes and insurance and foreclosure costs and the upkeep of vacant property in foreclosure to the extent that we determine that such amounts are recoverable. We could also be adversely affected by business disruptions triggered by natural disasters or acts or war or terrorism in these geographic areas.
We may incur litigation costs and related losses if the validity of a foreclosure action is challenged by a borrower or if a court overturns a foreclosure.
We may incur costs if we are required to, or if we elect to, execute or re-file documents or take other action in our capacity as a servicer in connection with pending or completed foreclosures. We may incur litigation costs if the validity of a foreclosure action is challenged by a borrower. If a court were to overturn a foreclosure because of errors or deficiencies in the foreclosure process, we may have liability to a title insurer of the property sold in foreclosure. These costs and liabilities may not be legally or otherwise reimbursable to us, particularly to the extent they relate to securitized mortgage loans. In addition, if certain documents required for a foreclosure action are missing or defective, we could be obligated to cure the defect or repurchase the loan. A significant increase in litigation costs could adversely affect our liquidity, and our inability to be reimbursed for servicing advances could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.
A failure to maintain minimum servicer ratings could have an adverse effect on our business, financing activities, financial condition or results of operations.
S&P, Moody’s, Fitch and others rate us as a mortgage servicer. Failure to maintain minimum servicer ratings could adversely affect our ability to sell or fund servicing advances going forward, could affect the terms and availability of debt financing facilities that we may seek in the future, and could impair our ability to consummate future servicing transactions or adversely affect our dealings with lenders, other contractual counterparties and regulators, including our ability to maintain our status as an approved servicer by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The servicer rating requirements of Fannie Mae do not necessarily require or imply immediate action, as Fannie Mae has discretion with respect to whether we are in compliance with

35


their requirements and what actions it deems appropriate under the circumstances in the event that we fall below their desired servicer ratings.
Certain of our servicing agreements require that we maintain specified servicer ratings. As a result of our current servicer ratings, termination rights have been triggered in some non-Agency servicing agreements. While the holders of these termination rights have not exercised them to date, they have not waived the right to do so, and we could, in the future, be subject to terminations either as a result of servicer ratings downgrades or future adverse actions by ratings agencies, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financing activities, financial condition and results of operations. Downgrades in our servicer ratings could also affect the terms and availability of advance financing or other debt facilities that we may seek in the future. Our failure to maintain minimum or specified ratings could adversely affect our dealings with contractual counterparties, including GSEs, Ginnie Mae and regulators, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financing activities, financial condition and results of operations. To date, terminations as servicer as a result of a breach of any of these provisions have been minimal.
Our earnings are subject to volatility.
Our operating results have been and may in the future be significantly affected by inter-period variations in our results of operations, including variations due to sales or acquisitions of MSRs or changes in the value of MSRs due to, among other factors, increases or decreases in prepayment speeds, delinquencies or defaults.
Certain non-recurring gains and losses have significantly affected our operating results in the past, and other non-recurring gains and losses may affect our operating results in future periods, resulting in substantial inter-period variations in financial performance. In particular, our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2019 reflect substantial costs relating to the integration of PHH, including costs relating to severance agreements and technology transitions. These costs may continue to have a significant impact on our future financial results.
We are subject to, among other things, requirements regarding the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. If our internal controls over financial reporting are found to be inadequate, our financial condition and results of operations and the trading price of our common stock may be materially and adversely affected.
Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and prevent fraud. In addition, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, requires us to evaluate and report on our internal control over financial reporting. As further detailed under Item 9A, Controls and Procedures, we concluded that, as of December 31, 2019, internal control over financial reporting is effective. However, during 2017, we identified a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting that required remediation and subsequent testing and evaluation before we could conclude that our internal control over financial reporting was once again effective. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect fraud or misstatements. In addition, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Fraud or misstatement could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our results of operations or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, investors could lose confidence in our financial reports and the trading price of our common stock may be adversely affected if our internal control over financial reporting is found by management or by our independent registered public accounting firm not to be adequate.
Changes in the method of determining the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), or the replacement of LIBOR with an alternative reference rate, may adversely affect interest rates, our business, and financial markets as a whole.
On July 27, 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority in the U.K. announced that it would phase out LIBOR as a benchmark by the end of 2021. It is unclear whether new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established such that it continues to exist after 2021, or whether different benchmark rates used to price indebtedness will develop. We presently have no debt facilities with maturities beyond 2021 that incorporate LIBOR and do not provide for its phase-out. As we renew or replace our debt facilities with maturities prior to the end of 2021 that currently incorporate LIBOR, we will need to work with our counterparties to incorporate alternative benchmarks. There is presently substantial uncertainty relating to the process and timeline for developing LIBOR alternatives, how widely any given alternative will be adopted by parties in the financial markets, and the extent to which alternative benchmarks may be subject to volatility or present risks and challenges that LIBOR does not. It is possible that we will disagree with our contractual counterparties over which alternative benchmark to adopt, which could make renewing or replacing our debt facilities and other agreements more complex. In addition, to the extent our adoption of a benchmark alternative impacts the interest rates payable by borrowers, it could lead to borrower complaints and litigation. Consequently, it is difficult to predict what effect, if any, the phase-out of LIBOR and the use of alternative benchmarks may have on our business or on the overall financial markets. If LIBOR alternatives re-allocate risk among parties in a way that is disadvantageous to market participants such as Ocwen, if there is disagreement among market

36


participants, including borrowers, over which alternative benchmark to adopt, or if uncertainty relating to the LIBOR phase-out disrupts financial markets, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.
Tax Risks
Failure to retain the tax benefits provided by the USVI would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
During 2019, in connection with our acquisition of PHH, overall corporate simplification and cost reduction efforts, we executed a legal entity reorganization whereby OLS, through which we previously conducted a substantial portion of our servicing business, was merged into PMC. OLS was previously the wholly-owned subsidiary of OMS, which was incorporated and headquartered in the USVI prior to its merger with Ocwen USVI Services, LLC, an entity which is also organized and headquartered in the USVI. The USVI has an Economic Development Commission (EDC) that provides certain tax benefits to qualified businesses. OMS received its certificate to operate as a company qualified for EDC benefits in October 2012 and as a result received significant tax benefits. Following our legal entity reorganization, we are no longer able to avail ourselves of favorable tax treatment for our USVI operations on a going forward basis. However, if the EDC were to determine that we failed to conduct our USVI operations in compliance with EDC qualifications prior to our reorganization, the value of the EDC benefits corresponding to the period prior to the reorganization could be reduced or eliminated, resulting in an increase to our tax expense. In addition, under our agreement with the EDC, we remain obligated to continue to operate Ocwen USVI Services, LLC in compliance with EDC requirements through 2042. If we fail to maintain our EDC qualification, we could be alleged to be in violation of our EDC commitments and the EDC could take adverse action against us, which could include demands for payment and reimbursement of past tax benefits, and it could result in the loss of anticipated income tax refunds. If any of these events were to occur, it could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We may be subject to increased United States federal income taxation.
OMS was incorporated under the laws of the USVI and operated in a manner that caused a substantial amount of its net income to be treated as not related to a trade or business within the United States, which caused such income to be exempt from United States federal income taxation. However, because there are no definitive standards provided by the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), regulations or court decisions as to the specific activities that constitute being engaged in the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, and as any such determination is essentially factual in nature, we cannot assure you that the IRS will not successfully assert that OMS was engaged in a trade or business within the United States with respect to that income.
If the IRS were to successfully assert that OMS had been engaged in a trade or business within the United States with respect to that income in any taxable year, it may become subject to United States federal income taxation on such income. Our tax returns and positions are subject to review and audit by federal and state taxing authorities. An unfavorable outcome to a tax audit could result in higher tax expense.
The recently enacted comprehensive tax reform legislation could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law new legislation that significantly revises the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) significantly changed the taxation of U.S.-based multinational corporations. The U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state tax authorities have issued and are expected to continue to issue guidance on how the provisions of the TCJA will be applied or otherwise administered. As regulations and guidance evolve with respect to the TCJA, the results of newly issued guidance could be adverse and may differ from previous estimates. The TCJA, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%, limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense and net operating loss carryforwards, one time taxation of offshore earnings at reduced rates regardless of whether they are repatriated, elimination of deferral of U.S. tax on foreign earnings (subject to certain important exceptions), a new minimum tax enacted to prevent companies from stripping earnings out of the U.S. through U.S. tax deductible payments made to foreign affiliates, immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time, and modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits. Notwithstanding the reduction in the corporate income tax rate, the overall impact of the new federal tax law is uncertain and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected.
In addition, state legislation and administrative guidance is still evolving. Certain states have recently enacted conformity legislation or decoupling legislation with uncertainty if, and to what extent, the various remaining states will conform to the newly enacted federal tax law. The impact of this tax reform on holders of our common stock is also uncertain and could be adverse.
Changes in taxation, as well as changes to tax filing positions resulting from examinations of our tax returns, and the ability to quantify such changes could adversely affect Ocwen’s financial results.

37


Ocwen is subject to taxation by the various taxing authorities at the Federal, state and local levels where it does business, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. Legislation or regulation, which could affect Ocwen’s tax burden, could be enacted by any of these governmental authorities. Ocwen cannot predict the timing or extent of such tax-related developments, which could have a negative impact on the financial results. In addition, in the ordinary course of business, our tax filings are subject to examination by these same taxing jurisdictions. The results of an examination of a company’s tax positions by various taxing authorities is inherently uncertain and could result in the disallowance of tax deductions, a reduction in the amount of and/or timing for receiving anticipated tax refunds, and other potential adjustments which could have a negative impact on our financial results.
Any “ownership change” as defined in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code could substantially limit our ability to utilize our net operating losses carryforwards and other deferred tax assets.

As of December 31, 2019, Ocwen had U.S. federal net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards of approximately $306.5 million, which we estimate to be worth approximately $64.4 million to Ocwen under our present assumptions related to Ocwen’s various relevant jurisdictional tax rates as a result of recently passed tax legislation (which assumptions reflect a significant degree of uncertainty). As of December 31, 2019, Ocwen had state NOL and state tax credit carryforwards which we estimate to be worth approximately $70.3 million. As of December 31, 2019, Ocwen had foreign tax credit carryforwards of $0.01 million in the U.S. jurisdiction. As of December 31, 2019, Ocwen had disallowed interest under Section 163(j) of $51.9 million in the U.S. jurisdiction and $0.0 million in the USVI jurisdiction. NOL carryforwards, Section 163(j) disallowed interest carryforwards and certain built-in losses or deductions may be subject to annual limitations under Internal Revenue Code Section 382 (Section 382) (or comparable provisions of foreign or state law) in the event that certain changes in ownership were to occur as measured under Section 382. In addition, tax credit carryforwards may be subject to annual limitations under Internal Revenue Code Section 383 (Section 383). We periodically evaluate whether certain changes in ownership have occurred as measured under Section 382 that would limit our ability to utilize our NOLs, tax credit carryforwards, deductions and/or certain built-in losses. If it is determined that an ownership change(s) has occurred, there may be annual limitations under Sections 382 and 383 (or comparable provisions of foreign or state law).
We have evaluated whether we experienced an ownership change under these provisions, and determined that an ownership change did occur in January 2015 and in December 2017 in the U.S. jurisdiction, which also results in an ownership change under Section 382 in the USVI jurisdiction. In addition, a Section 382 ownership change occurred at PHH when Ocwen acquired the stock of PHH in October 2018. PHH was a loss corporation as defined under Section 382 at the date of the acquisition. PHH also had an existing Section 382 ownership change on March 31, 2018. For certain states, an additional Section 382 ownership change occurred on August 9, 2017. These Section 382 ownership changes may limit our ability to fully utilize NOLs, tax credit carryforwards, deductions and/or certain built-in losses that existed as of each respective ownership change date in the various jurisdictions.
Due to the Section 382 and 383 limitations and the maximum carryforward period for our NOLs and tax credits, we will be unable to fully recognize certain deferred tax assets. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2018, we reduced our gross deferred tax asset related to our U.S. federal and USVI NOLs by $160.9 million, our foreign tax credit deferred tax asset by $29.5 million and corresponding valuation allowance by $55.7 million. The realization of all or a portion of our deferred income tax assets (including NOLs and tax credits) is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during the statutory carryforward periods. In addition, the limitation on the utilization of our NOL and tax credit carryforwards could result in Ocwen incurring a current tax liability in future tax years. Our inability to utilize our pre-ownership change NOL carryforwards, Section 163(j) disallowed interest carryforwards, any future recognized built-in losses or deductions, and tax credit carryforwards could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Finally, any future changes in our ownership or sale of our stock could further limit the use of our NOLs and tax credits in the future.
As part of our Section 382 evaluation and consistent with the rules provided within Section 382, Ocwen relies strictly on the existence or absence of, as well as the information contained in, certain publicly available documents (e.g., Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G or other documents filed with the SEC) to identify shareholders that own a 5-percent or greater interest in Ocwen stock throughout the period tested. Further, Ocwen relies on such public filings to identify dates in which such 5-percent shareholders acquired, disposed, or otherwise transacted in Ocwen common stock. As the requirement for filing such notices of ownership from the SEC is to report beneficial ownership, as opposed to actual economic ownership of the stock of Ocwen, certain SEC filings may not represent ownership in Ocwen stock that should be considered in determining whether Ocwen experienced an ownership change under the Section 382 rules. Notwithstanding the preceding sentences (regarding Ocwen’s ability to rely on the existence and absence of information in publicly filed Schedules 13D and 13G), the rules prescribed in Section 382 and the regulations thereunder provide that Ocwen may (but is not required to) seek additional clarification from shareholders filing such Schedules 13D and 13G if there are questions or uncertainty regarding the true economic ownership of shares reported in such filing (whether due to ambiguity in the filing, an overly complex ownership structure, the type of instruments owned and reported in the filings, etc.) (often referred to “actual knowledge” questionnaires). Such information can be sought on a filer by filer basis (i.e., there is no requirement that if actual knowledge is sought with respect to one

38


shareholder, actual knowledge must be sought with respect to all shareholders that filed schedules 13D or 13G). While the seeking of actual knowledge can be beneficial in some instances it may be detrimental in others. Once such actual knowledge is received, Section 382 requires the inclusion of such actual knowledge, even if such inclusion is detrimental to the conclusion reached.
Ocwen has performed its analysis of the rules under Section 382 and, based on all currently available information, identified, in 2018, that it experienced an ownership change for Section 382 purposes in January 2015 and December 2017. Prior to 2018, Ocwen was aware of shareholder activity in 2015 and 2017 that may have caused a Section 382 ownership change(s) but determined that additional information could potentially be obtained from certain shareholders that would indicate a Section 382 ownership change had not occurred. In completing this analysis, Ocwen identified several shareholders that filed a schedule 13G during the period disclosing a greater than 5-percent interest in Ocwen stock where beneficial versus economic ownership of the stock was unclear and Ocwen therefore requested further details. As of the date of this Form 10-K, Ocwen has not received all requested responses from selected shareholders and will continue to consider such shareholders as economic owners of Ocwen’s stock until actual knowledge is otherwise received.
Ocwen is continuing to monitor the ownership in its stock to evaluate information that will become available later in 2020 and that may result in a different outcome for Section 382 purposes and our future cash tax obligations. As part of this monitoring, Ocwen periodically evaluates whether it is appropriate and beneficial to retroactively seek actual knowledge on certain previously identified and included 5-percent shareholders, whereby, depending on the responses received, Ocwen may conclude that either the January 2015 or December 2017 Section 382 ownership changes may have instead occurred on a different date, or did not occur at all. As such, our analysis regarding the amount of tax attributes that may be available to offset taxable income in the future without restrictions imposed by Section 382 may continue to evolve.
The reorganization of our USVI operations could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
During 2019, in connection with our acquisition of PHH, overall corporate simplification and cost reduction efforts, we executed a legal entity reorganization whereby two primary licensed entities (PMC and OLS) would be combined by merging OLS into PMC. OLS was previously the wholly-owned subsidiary of OMS, an entity that was incorporated and headquartered in the USVI. As a result of this merger, a portion of our USVI operations and assets were transferred to the U.S. At this time, we expect the merger to be treated as a reorganization that will result in efficiencies and operational cost savings through reduced complexity and a simplification of our global structure.
Although we expect the reorganization to result in efficiencies and operational cost savings, it is uncertain how the reorganization will ultimately impact Ocwen from a U.S. federal, state and USVI income tax perspective. We are continuing to evaluate the impact of the new U.S. tax legislation and guiding regulations (which are still being promulgated and finalized) on our global tax position. It is possible that our interpretation of the new tax legislation and related guidance that has been provided to date, and for which we are relying on to conclude upon the tax consequences of the reorganization and the future business operations, will not be consistent with final guidance provided by the IRS. In addition, the reorganization of the USVI operations could result in a write-down of our net deferred tax assets, including our NOL carryforwards, as well as a permanent loss of our EDC benefits in the USVI. Finally, the IRS or the Bureau of Internal Revenue may challenge our conclusions regarding the taxation associated with the reorganization and future business operations which could result in an increase to our current income tax obligations. The reorganization and future business operations could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows due to the uncertainty of how the new U.S. tax legislation will impact our global tax position, as well as the other factors noted above.
Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Common Stock
Our common stock price experiences substantial volatility and has dropped significantly on a number of occasions in recent periods, which may affect your ability to sell our common stock at an advantageous price. 
The market price of our shares of common stock has been, and may continue to be, volatile. For example, the closing market price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange fluctuated during 2019 between $1.27 per share and $2.41 per share and the closing stock price on February 21, 2020 was $1.40 per share. Therefore, the volatility and recent decline in our stock price may affect your ability to sell our common stock at an advantageous price. Market price fluctuations in our common stock may be due to factors both within and outside our control, including regulatory or legal actions, acquisitions, dispositions or other material public announcements or speculative trading in our stock (e.g., traders “shorting” our common stock), as well as a variety of other factors including, but not limited to those set forth under “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements.”
In addition, the stock markets in general, including the New York Stock Exchange, have, at times, experienced extreme price and trading fluctuations. These fluctuations have resulted in volatility in the market prices of securities that often has been unrelated or disproportionate to changes in operating performance. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market prices of our common stock. 

39


When the market price of a company's shares drops significantly, shareholders often institute securities class action lawsuits against the company. A lawsuit against us, even if unsuccessful, could cause us to incur substantial costs and could divert the time and attention of our management and other resources. Further, if the average closing price of our stock over thirty consecutive trading days were to fall below $1.00, we would need to take immediate steps to avoid de-listing by the New York Stock Exchange. Such measures could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert management attention, and could include implementing a reverse stock split, which would entail additional risk, and success in preventing de-listing would not be assured.
We have several large shareholders, and such shareholders may vote their shares to influence matters requiring shareholder approval.
Based on SEC filings, certain shareholders, such as investors Deer Park Road Management Company, LP and Leon G. Cooperman, own or control significant amounts of our common stock. These and our other large shareholders each have the ability to vote a meaningful percentage of our outstanding common stock on all matters put to a vote of our shareholders. As a result, these shareholders could influence matters requiring shareholder approval, including the amendment of our articles of incorporation, the approval of mergers or similar transactions and the election of directors. For instance, we held a special meeting of shareholders in November 2018 in order to implement an amendment to our articles of incorporation that management believed was necessary to help us preserve certain tax assets, but in part due to the fact that we did not receive the vote of several large shareholders, the proposal was not adopted by our shareholders. If, in the future, situations arise in which management and certain large shareholders have divergent views, we may be unable to take actions management believes to be in the best interests of Ocwen.
Further, certain of our large shareholders also hold significant percentages of stock in companies with which we do business. It is possible these interlocking ownership positions could cause these shareholders to take actions based on factors other than solely what is in the best interests of Ocwen.
Our board of directors may authorize the issuance of additional securities that may cause dilution and may depress the price of our securities.
Our charter permits our board of directors, without our stockholders’ approval, to:
•
authorize the issuance of additional common stock or preferred stock in connection with future equity offerings or acquisitions of securities or other assets of companies; and
•
classify or reclassify any unissued common stock or preferred stock and to set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares, including the issuance of shares of preferred stock that have preference rights over the common stock and existing preferred stock with respect to dividends, liquidation, voting and other matters or shares of common stock that have preference rights over common stock with respect to voting.
While any such issuance would be subject to compliance with the terms of our debt and other agreements, our issuance of additional securities could be substantially dilutive to our existing stockholders and may depress the price of our common stock.
Future offerings of debt securities, which would be senior to our common stock in liquidation, or equity securities, which would dilute our existing stockholders’ interests and may be senior to our common stock in liquidation or for the purposes of distributions, may harm the market price of our securities.
We will continue to seek to access the capital markets from time to time and, subject to compliance with our other contractual agreements, may make additional offerings of term loans, debt or equity securities, including senior or subordinated notes, preferred stock or common stock. We are not precluded by the terms of our charter from issuing additional indebtedness. Accordingly, we could become more highly leveraged, resulting in an increase in debt service obligations and an increased risk of default on our obligations. If we were to liquidate, holders of our debt and lenders with respect to other borrowings would receive a distribution of our available assets before the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings by us may dilute our existing stockholders’ interest in us or reduce the market price of our existing securities. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Further, conditions could require that we accept less favorable terms for the issuance of our securities in the future. Thus, our existing stockholders will bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our securities and diluting their ownership interest in us.
Because of certain provisions in our organizational documents and regulatory restrictions, takeovers may be more difficult, possibly preventing you from obtaining an optimal share price. In addition, significant investments in our common stock may be restricted, which could impact demand for, and the trading price of, our common stock.
Our amended and restated articles of incorporation provide that the total number of shares of all classes of capital stock that we have authority to issue is 220 million, of which 200 million are common shares and 20 million are preferred shares. Our

40


board of directors has the authority, without a vote of the shareholders, to establish the preferences and rights of any preferred or other class or series of shares to be issued and to issue such shares. The issuance of preferred shares could delay or prevent a change in control. Since our board of directors has the power to establish the preferences and rights of the preferred shares without a shareholder vote, our board of directors may give the holders of preferred shares preferences, powers and rights, including voting rights, senior to the rights of holders of our common shares. In addition, our bylaws include provisions that, among other things, require advance notice for raising business or making nominations at meetings, which could impact the ability of a third party to acquire control of us or the timing of acquiring such control.
Third parties seeking to acquire us or make significant investments in us must do so in compliance with state regulatory requirements applicable to licensed mortgage servicers and lenders. Many states require change of control applications for acquisitions of “control” as defined under each state’s laws and regulation, which may apply to an investment without regard to the intent of the investor. For example, New York has a control presumption triggered at 10% ownership of the voting stock of the licensee or of any person that controls the licensee. In addition, we have licensed insurance subsidiaries in New York and Vermont. Accordingly, there can be no effective change in control of Ocwen unless the person seeking to acquire control has made the relevant filings and received the requisite approvals in New York and Vermont. These regulatory requirements may discourage potential acquisition proposals or investments, may delay or prevent a change in control of us and may impact demand for, and the trading price of, our common stock.
ITEM 1B. 
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2.
PROPERTIES
The following table sets forth information relating to our principal facilities at December 31, 2019:
Location
 
Owned/Leased
 
Square Footage
Principal executive offices
 
 
 
 
West Palm Beach, Florida
 
Leased
 
51,546

 
 
 
 
 
Document storage and imaging facility
 
 
 
 
West Palm Beach, Florida
 
Leased
 
51,931

 
 
 
 
 
Business operations and support offices
 
 
 
 
U.S. facilities:
 
 
 
 
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey (1)
 
Leased
 
483,896

Rancho Cordova, California (2)
 
Leased
 
53,107

Houston, Texas (3)
 
Leased
 
9,653

St. Croix, USVI (4)
 
Leased
 
6,096

 
 
 
 
 
Offshore facilities (4)
 
 
 
 
Bangalore, India
 
Leased
 
128,606

Mumbai, India
 
Leased
 
96,696

Pune, India (5)
 
Leased
 
88,683

Manila, Philippines
 
Leased
 
39,329

 
 
 
 
 
Former operations and support offices no longer utilized
 
 
 
 
Waterloo, Iowa (6)
 
Owned
 
154,980

Fort Washington, Pennsylvania (6)
 
Leased
 
77,026

Westampton, New Jersey (7)
 
Leased
 
71,164

Addison, Texas (6)
 
Leased
 
39,646

Bannockburn, Illinois (7)
 
Leased
 
36,188

 
 
 
 
 

41


(1)
The Mt. Laurel facility includes two buildings, one with 376,122 square feet of space supporting our servicing and lending operations, as well as our corporate functions. We ceased using 124,795 square feet as a result of the reduction in headcount. The second building has 107,774 square feet of space, all of which is subleased.
(2)
Primarily supports reverse lending operations.
(3)
Primarily supports commercial operations.
(4)
Primarily supports servicing operations.
(5)
We ceased using approximately half of the Pune facility as a result of a reduction in headcount. We did not renew our lease for 44,355 square feet of space on January 1, 2020.
(6)
We ceased operations in these facilities during 2019 and the space is currently unoccupied. We have listed the Waterloo property for sale. The Fort Washington lease expires in June 2020. The Addison lease, which expires in 2025, is currently being marketed for sublease.
(7)
The Westampton and Bannockburn facilities are former PHH facilities. The Westampton lease, which expires in December 2021 is currently subleased and the Bannockburn lease expires in March 2020.
In addition to the facilities listed in the table above, we also lease other small facilities in Glendale, California (ceased operations in 2019); Irvine, California (occupied); and Atlanta, Georgia (ceased operations in 2019 and currently subleased).
ITEM 3.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
See Note 26 — Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements. That information is incorporated into this item by reference.
ITEM 4.
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
PART II
ITEM 5.
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Price Range of Our Common Stock
The common stock of Ocwen Financial Corporation is traded under the symbol “OCN” on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
Dividends
We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We currently do not intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future but intend to reinvest earnings in our business. The timing and amount of any future dividends will be determined by our Board of Directors and will depend, among other factors, upon our earnings, financial condition, cash requirements, the capital requirements of subsidiaries and investment opportunities at the time any such payment is considered. In addition, the covenants relating to certain of our borrowings contain limitations on our payment of dividends. Our Board of Directors has no obligation to declare dividends on our common stock under Florida law or our amended and restated articles of incorporation.

42


Stock Return Performance
The following graph compares the cumulative total return on the common stock of Ocwen Financial Corporation since December 31, 2014, with the cumulative total return on the stocks included in Standard & Poor’s 500 Market Index and Standard & Poor’s Diversified Financials Market Index. The graph assumes that $100 was invested in our common stock and in each index on December 31, 2014 and the reinvestment of all dividends.

chart-daf9b3ae2baa5d85821a01.jpg

 
 
Period Ending
Index
 
12/31/2014
 
12/31/2015
 
12/31/2016
 
12/31/2017
 
12/31/2018
 
12/31/2019
Ocwen Financial Corporation
 
$
100.00

 
$
46.16

 
$
35.70

 
$
20.73

 
$
8.87

 
$
9.07

S&P 500
 
$
100.00

 
$
100.88

 
$
110.50

 
$
131.96

 
$
123.73

 
$
159.45

S&P 500 Diversified Financials
 
$
100.00

 
$
89.74

 
$
106.63

 
$
131.50

 
$
117.01

 
$
143.74

(1)
Copyright © 2017 S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, a division of S&P Global. All rights reserved. Redistribution or reproduction in whole or in part are prohibited without written permission of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. S&P 500® and S&P® are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC, a division of S&P Global (S&P); DOW JONES is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones); and these trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P and their respective affiliates (S&P Dow Jones Indices) makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the ability of any index to accurately represent the asset class or market sector that it purports to represent and S&P Dow Jones Indices and its third-party licensors shall have no liability for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index or the data included therein. All data and information is provided by S&P DJI "as is". Past performance is not an indication or guarantee of future results.
This performance graph shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference into any filing by us under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.
Number of Holders of Common Stock
On February 21, 2020, 134,948,008 shares of our common stock were outstanding and held by approximately 99 holders of record. Such number of stockholders does not reflect the number of individuals or institutional investors holding our stock in nominee name through banks, brokerage firms and others.

43


Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
All unregistered sales of equity securities have been previously reported.
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliates
There were no repurchases of our common stock during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2019.
ITEM 6.
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA (Dollars in thousands, except per share data and unless otherwise indicated)
The selected historical consolidated financial information set forth below should be read in conjunction with Business, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, our Consolidated Financial Statements and the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The historical financial information presented may not be indicative of our future performance.
 
 
December 31,
 
 
2019
 
2018
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Selected Balance Sheet Data
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Total Assets
 
$
10,406,199

 
$
9,394,216

 
$
8,403,164

 
$
7,655,663

 
$
7,380,308

Loans held for sale
 
$
275,269

 
$
242,622

 
$
238,358

 
$
314,006

 
$
414,046

Loans held for investment
 
6,292,938

 
5,498,719

 
4,715,831

 
3,565,716

 
2,488,253

Advances and match funded advances
 
1,056,523

 
1,186,676

 
1,356,393

 
1,709,846

 
2,151,066

Mortgage servicing rights
 
1,486,395

 
1,457,149

 
1,008,844

 
1,042,978

 
1,138,569

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Liabilities
 
$
9,994,188

 
$
8,839,511

 
$
7,856,290

 
$
7,000,380

 
$
6,525,670

HMBS-related borrowings
 
$
6,063,435

 
$
5,380,448

 
$
4,601,556

 
$
3,433,781

 
$
2,391,362

Other financing liabilities (1)
 
972,595

 
1,062,090

 
520,943

 
497,900

 
601,347

Match funded liabilities
 
679,109

 
778,284

 
998,618

 
1,280,997

 
1,584,049

Long-term other secured borrowings (1)
 
511,280

 
632,694

 
704,076

 
799,504

 
831,309

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total equity
 
$
412,011

 
$
554,705

 
$
546,874

 
$
655,283

 
$
854,638

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Residential Loans and Real Estate
Serviced or Subserviced for Others
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Count
 
1,419,943

 
1,562,238

 
1,221,695

 
1,393,766

 
1,624,762

UPB
 
$
212,366,431

 
$
256,000,490

 
$
179,352,553

 
$
209,092,130

 
$
250,966,112



44


 
For the Years Ended December 31,
 
2019
 
2018
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Selected Results of Operations Data(2)
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Revenue
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Servicing and subservicing fees
$
975,507

 
$
937,083

 
$
991,597

 
$
1,188,229

 
$
1,532,865

Gain on loans held for sale, net
38,300

 
37,336

 
57,183

 
51,011

 
104,754

Reverse mortgage revenue, net
86,309

 
60,237

 
75,515

 
71,681

 
46,442

Other
23,259

 
28,389

 
70,281

 
76,242

 
57,037

Total revenue
1,123,375

 
1,063,045

 
1,194,576

 
1,387,163

 
1,741,098

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MSR valuation adjustments, net
(120,876
)
 
(153,457
)
 
(52,962
)
 
(32,978
)
 
(99,194
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating expenses
673,939

 
779,039

 
945,683

 
1,190,276

 
1,378,990

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other income (expense)
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Interest expense
(114,129
)
 
(103,371
)
 
(126,927
)
 
(178,183
)
 
(213,580
)
Pledged MSR liability expense
(372,089
)
 
(171,670
)
 
(236,311
)
 
(234,400
)
 
(268,793
)
Bargain purchase gain (3)
(381
)
 
64,036

 
—

 
—

 
—

Gain on sale of MSRs, net (4)
453

 
1,325

 
10,537

 
8,492

 
83,921

Other, net
31,095

 
7,655

 
12,797

 
33,821

 
5,677

Other expense, net
(455,051
)
 
(202,025
)
 
(339,904
)
 
(370,270
)
 
(392,775
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes
(126,491
)
 
(71,476
)
 
(143,973
)
 
(206,361
)
 
(129,861
)
Income tax expense (benefit) (5)
15,634

 
529

 
(15,516
)
 
(6,986
)
 
116,851

Loss from continuing operations
(142,125
)
 
(72,005
)
 
(128,457
)
 
(199,375
)
 
(246,712
)
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax
—

 
1,409

 
—

 
—

 
—

Net loss
(142,125
)
 
(70,596
)
 
(128,457
)
 
(199,375
)
 
(246,712
)
Net loss (income) attributable to non-controlling interests
—

 
(176
)
 
491

 
(387
)
 
(305
)
Net loss attributable to Ocwen stockholders
$
(142,125
)
 
$
(70,772
)
 
$
(127,966
)
 
$
(199,762
)
 
$
(247,017
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Earnings (loss) per share - Basic and Diluted
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Continuing operations
$
(1.06
)
 
$
(0.54
)
 
$
(1.01
)
 
$
(1.61
)
 
$
(1.97
)
Discontinued operations
$
—

 
$
0.01

 
$
—

 
$
—

 
$
—

Total attributable to Ocwen stockholders
$
(1.06
)
 
$
(0.53
)
 
$
(1.01
)
 
$
(1.61
)
 
$
(1.97
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Basic
134,444,402

 
133,703,359

 
127,082,058

 
123,990,700

 
125,315,899

Diluted (6)
134,444,402

 
133,703,359

 
127,082,058

 
123,990,700

 
125,315,899

(1)
In the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we reclassified borrowings with an outstanding balance of $65.5 million, $72.6 million, $81.1 million and $96.5 million, respectively, from Other financing liabilities to Other secured borrowings to conform to the current year presentation. See the Reclassifications section of Note 1 — Organization, Business Environment, Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies for additional information.
(2)
Certain amounts in the consolidated statements of operations for 2015 - 2018 have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation, including presentation of the MSR valuation adjustments, net line item separately from Operating expenses and adding new line items for Reverse mortgage revenue, net (without any impact on total Revenue) and Pledged MSR liability expense (previously

45


included in Interest expense, without any impact on Other income (expense)). Reclassifications of prior years to present Reverse mortgage revenue, net as a separate revenue line item on the face of the statement of operations are provided in the table below. See the Reclassifications section of Note 1 — Organization, Business Environment, Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies for additional information.
 
 
 
Years ended December 31,
 
 
 
2018
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
From
Gain on loans held for sale, net
$
40,407

 
$
46,219

 
$
39,380

 
$
30,215

From
Other revenue, net
22,577

 
31,517

 
33,910

 
17,295

From
Servicing and subservicing fees
(2,747
)
 
(2,221
)
 
(1,609
)
 
(1,068
)
To
Reverse mortgage revenue, net (New line item)
60,237

 
75,515

 
71,681

 
46,442

Total revenue
$
—

 
$
—

 
$
—

 
$
—

(3)
Recognized in connection with the acquisition of PHH on October 4, 2018. See Note 2 — Business Acquisition to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
(4)
During 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we sold certain of our MSRs relating to loans with a UPB of $140.8 million, $901.3 million, $219.4 million, $3.7 billion and $87.6 billion, respectively.
(5)
Income tax expense for 2015 includes a $97.1 million provision to establish valuation allowances relating to deferred tax assets in our U.S. and USVI tax jurisdictions. See Note 20 — Income Taxes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
(6)
For 2015 - 2019, we have excluded the effect of all dilutive or potentially dilutive shares from the computation of diluted earnings per share because of the anti-dilutive effect of our reported net loss.
ITEM 7.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Dollars in thousands, unless otherwise indicated)
The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, as well as other portions of this Form 10-K, may contain certain statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could”, “intend,” “consider,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict” or “continue” or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements by their nature address matters that are, to different degrees, uncertain. Our business has been undergoing substantial change, which has magnified such risks and uncertainties. You should bear these factors in mind when considering forward-looking statements and should not place undue reliance on such statements. Forward-looking statements involve a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by such statements. In the past, actual results have differed from those suggested by forward-looking statements and this may happen again. You should consider all uncertainties and risks discussed or referenced in this report, including those under “Forward-Looking Statements” and Item 1A, Risk Factors, as well as those discussed in any subsequent SEC filings.
The Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations section of this Form 10-K generally discusses 2019 and 2018 items and year-to-year comparisons between 2019 and 2018. Discussions of 2017 items and year-to-year comparisons between 2018 and 2017 that are not included in this Form 10-K can be found in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.
OVERVIEW
We are a financial services company that services and originates mortgage loans. The majority of our revenues are generated from our residential mortgage servicing business. As of December 31, 2019, our residential mortgage servicing portfolio consisted of 1,419,943 loans with a total UPB of $212.37 billion. We service all mortgage loan classes, including conventional, government-insured and non-Agency loans.

46


We selectively sourced our MSR originations and acquisitions and subservicing in 2019 through diversified channels, as detailed below:
Amounts in billions
UPB
 
Quarter Ended December 31, 2019
 
Year Ended December 31, 2019
MSR additions:
 
 
 
MSR originations
 
 
 
Recapture origination
$
0.17

 
$
0.66

Correspondent
0.40

 
0.49

Flow purchases
0.24

 
0.24

GSE Cash Window
0.55

 
0.67

Reverse MSR originations
0.26

 
0.73

Total MSR originations
1.62

 
2.79

Bulk MSR purchases
2.74

 
14.62

Total MSR additions
4.36

 
17.41

Subservicing additions
3.79

 
8.68

Total MSR and subservicing additions
$
8.15

 
$
26.09

In our lending business, we originate, purchase, sell and securitize forward and reverse mortgage loans that are mostly conventional and government-insured. During 2019, we originated $1.88 billion forward and reverse mortgage loans.
On October 4, 2018, we completed the acquisition of PHH, whose servicing portfolio consisted of 537,225 residential mortgage loans with a UPB of $119.3 billion, $68.7 billion of which were under subservicing agreements. During 2019, we successfully executed our planned integration of PHH’s business with ours with a focus on system integration, elimination of duplicative processes and transformation to create value. We have fully transitioned our servicing onto the Black Knight MSP servicing system. We have reduced total staffing levels by 1,100 or 17%, with a total headcount of approximately 5,300 at December 31, 2019 compared to the Ocwen headcount pre-PHH acquisition of 6,400 on September 30, 2018. We have vacated seven U.S. facilities. In the first half of 2019, we completed the mergers of two of our primary licensed operating entities, Homeward and OLS into PMC, with PMC being the surviving corporation.
We have established a set of key business initiatives to achieve our objective of returning to sustainable profitability in the shortest timeframe possible within an appropriate risk and compliance environment. These include:
•
Managing the size of our servicing portfolio through expanding our lending business to grow sustainable channels of MSR replenishment;
•
Reengineering our cost structure;
•
Effectively managing our balance sheet to fund our ongoing business needs and growth; and,
•
Fulfilling our regulatory commitments and resolving remaining legacy matters.
First, we must expand our lending business and targeted MSR acquisitions that have appropriate financial return targets to replenish and grow our servicing portfolio. We expect to continue to focus on acquiring Agency and government-insured MSR portfolios that meet or exceed our minimum targeted investment returns. During 2019, we closed MSR acquisitions with $14.6 billion UPB or $153.5 million fair value, allowing us to grow our Agency portfolio on a net basis after portfolio runoff. We also executed on our plans to re-enter the forward lending correspondent channel in the second quarter of 2019 and we continue to pursue a number of other MSR acquisition options, including driving improved recapture rates within our existing servicing portfolio. In addition to our organic growth initiatives in lending, we have been actively engaged in evaluating opportunities to acquire complimentary lending businesses with proven capabilities to generate significant volume through mortgage lending cycles and provide a sustainable MSR source. Some of these opportunities could also immediately increase the size of our servicing portfolio through these businesses’ existing MSRs.
Second, we must re-engineer our cost structure to go beyond eliminating redundant costs through the integration process and establish continuous operational efficiencies and cost improvement as a core strength. Our continuous cost improvement efforts are focused on leveraging our single servicing platform and technology, optimizing strategic sourcing and off-shore utilization, lean process design, automation and other technology-enabled productivity enhancements. Our initiatives are

47


targeted at delivering superior accuracy, cost, speed and customer satisfaction. We believe these steps are necessary in order to simplify our operations and drive stronger financial performance.
Third, we must manage our balance sheet to ensure adequate liquidity and maintain diverse sources of capital and a solid platform for financing our ongoing business needs and executing on our other key business initiatives. In 2019, we established three financing facilities secured by MSRs under which we had borrowed $314.4 million at December 31, 2019, approximately half of which effectively supported our 2019 MSR acquisitions. In addition, in January 2020 we extended the maturity on our senior secured term loan (SSTL) from December 2020 to May 2022 and reduced the outstanding balance from $326.1 million to $200.0 million consistent with our focus on lower cost asset-backed structured finance debt. We continue to evaluate our capital structure options to determine how to enable the most effective execution of our key business initiatives.
Finally, we must fulfill our regulatory commitments and resolve our remaining legal and regulatory matters on satisfactory terms. Our business, operating results and financial condition have been significantly impacted in recent periods by regulatory actions against us and by significant litigation matters. Should the number or scope of regulatory or legal actions against us increase or expand or should we be unable to reach reasonable resolutions in existing regulatory and legal matters, our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected, even if we are successful in our ongoing efforts to drive stronger financial performance.
Our ability to execute on these key business initiatives is not certain and is dependent on the successful execution of several complex actions, including our ability to grow our lending business and acquire MSRs with appropriate financial return targets, our ability to acquire, maintain and grow profitable client relationships, our ability to implement further organizational redesign and cost reduction, as well as the absence of significant unforeseen costs, including regulatory or legal costs, that could negatively impact our return to sustainable profitability, and our ability to extend, renew or replace our debt agreements in the ordinary course of business. There can be no assurances that the desired strategic and financial benefits of these actions will be realized.
In recent periods, Ocwen has incurred significant losses as a result of declines in the fair value of our MSRs. Further interest rate decreases, prepayment speed increases or changes to other fair value inputs or assumptions could result in further fair value declines and hamper our ability to return to profitability. Starting in September 2019, we have implemented a hedging strategy to partially offset the changes in fair value of our net MSR portfolio. See Risk Management - Market Risk for further information.
In addition, we have exposure to concentration risk and client retention risk as a result of our relationship with NRZ, which accounted for 56% of the UPB in our servicing portfolio as of December 31, 2019 and approximately 74% of all delinquent loans that Ocwen serviced. During 2019, NRZ-related servicing fees retained by Ocwen represented approximately 36% of the total servicing and subservicing fees earned by Ocwen, net of servicing fees remitted to NRZ (excluding ancillary income).
During 2019, we completed an assessment of the cost-to-service and the profitability of the NRZ servicing portfolio. Based on this analysis, in the fourth quarter of 2019, we estimate that operating expenses, including direct servicing expenses and overhead allocation, exceeded the net revenue retained for the NRZ servicing portfolio by approximately $10.0 million. As with all estimates, this estimate required the exercise of judgment, including with respect to overhead allocations, and it excludes the benefits of the lump-sum payment amortization. The estimated loss for these subservicing agreements is partially driven by the declining revenue as the loan portfolio amortizes down without a corresponding reduction to our servicing cost per loan over time. As performing loans in the NRZ servicing portfolio have run-off, delinquencies have remained high, resulting in a relatively elevated average cost per loan. Because the NRZ portfolio contains a high percentage of delinquent accounts, it has an inherently high level of potential operational and compliance risk and requires a disproportionately high level of operating staff, oversight support infrastructure and overhead which drives the elevated average cost per loan. We actively pursue cost re-engineering initiatives to continue to reduce our cost-to-service and corporate overhead, as well as pursue actions to grow our non-NRZ servicing portfolio.
On February 20, 2020, we received a notice of termination from NRZ with respect to the legacy PMC subservicing agreement. This termination is for convenience (and not for cause). The notice states that the effective date of termination is June 19, 2020 for 25% of the loans under the agreement (not including loans constituting approximately $6.6 billion in UPB that were added by NRZ under the agreement in 2019) and August 18, 2020 for the remainder of the loans under the agreement. The actual servicing transfer date(s) will be determined through discussions with NRZ and other stakeholders such as GSEs. In connection with the termination, we estimate that we will receive loan deboarding fees of approximately $6.1 million from NRZ. The portfolio subject to termination accounted for $42.1 billion in UPB, or 20% of our total serviced UPB as of December 31, 2019. Under this agreement, in the fourth quarter of 2019, we estimate that operating expenses, including direct expenses and overhead allocation, exceeded the net revenue retained for this portion of the NRZ servicing portfolio by approximately $3.0 million. At this stage, we do not anticipate significant operational impacts on our servicing business as a result of this termination. The terminated servicing is comprised of Agency loans with relatively low delinquencies that do not pose a high level of operating and compliance risk or require substantial direct and oversight staffing relative to our non-

48


Agency servicing. Nonetheless, we intend to right-size and reduce expenses in our servicing business and the related corporate support functions to the extent possible to align with our smaller portfolio.

We currently anticipate that the loan deboarding fees from NRZ will offset a significant portion of our transition and restructuring costs assuming an orderly and timely transfer. However, it is possible that the loan deboarding and other transition activities that we will undertake as a result of the termination may not occur in an orderly or timely manner, which could be disruptive and could result in us incurring additional costs or even in disagreements with NRZ relating to our respective rights and obligations. Overall, our current view is that if we can exclude the legacy PMC NRZ servicing portfolio and successfully execute on the necessary transition and expense reduction actions in an orderly and timely manner, we will be able to enhance the long-term financial performance of our servicing business.



49


Operations Summary
 
Years Ended December 31,
 
% Change
 
2019
 
2018
 
2017
 
2019 vs. 2018
 
2018 vs. 2017
Revenue
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Servicing and subservicing fees
$
975,507

 
$
937,083

 
$
991,597

 
4
 %

(5
)%
Gain on loans held for sale, net
38,300

 
37,336

 
57,183

 
3


(35
)
Reverse mortgage revenue, net
86,309

 
60,237

 
75,515

 
43

 
(20
)
Other revenue, net
23,259

 
28,389

 
70,281

 
(18
)

(60
)
Total revenue
1,123,375

 
1,063,045

 
1,194,576

 
6


(11
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MSR valuation adjustments, net
(120,876
)
 
(153,457
)
 
(52,962
)
 
(21
)
 
190

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating expenses
 
 
 
 
 
 





Compensation and benefits
313,508

 
298,036

 
358,994

 
5

 
(17
)
Professional services
102,638

 
165,554

 
229,451

 
(38
)
 
(28
)
Servicing and origination
109,007

 
131,297

 
141,496

 
(17
)
 
(7
)
Technology and communications
79,166

 
98,241

 
100,490

 
(19
)
 
(2
)
Occupancy and equipment
68,146

 
59,631

 
66,019

 
14

 
(10
)
Other expenses
1,474

 
26,280

 
49,233

 
(94
)
 
(47
)
Total operating expenses
673,939

 
779,039

 
945,683

 
(13
)
 
(18
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other income (expense)
 

 
 

 
 

 


 


Interest income
17,104

 
14,026

 
15,965

 
22

 
(12
)
Interest expense
(114,129
)
 
(103,371
)
 
(126,927
)
 
10


(19
)
Pledged MSR liability expense
(372,089
)
 
(171,670
)
 
(236,311
)
 
117

 
(27
)
Gain on repurchase of senior secured notes
5,099

 
—

 
—

 
n/m

 
n/m

Bargain purchase gain
(381
)
 
64,036

 
—

 
(101
)
 
n/m

Gain on sale of MSRs, net
453

 
1,325

 
10,537

 
(66
)
 
(87
)
Other, net
8,892

 
(6,371
)
 
(3,168
)
 
(240
)

101

Total other expense, net
(455,051
)
 
(202,025
)
 
(339,904
)
 
125


(41
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes
(126,491
)
 
(71,476
)
 
(143,973
)
 
77


(50
)
Income tax expense (benefit)
15,634

 
529

 
(15,516
)
 
n/m


(103
)
Loss from continuing operations, net of tax
(142,125
)
 
(72,005
)
 
(128,457
)
 
97


(44
)
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax
—

 
1,409

 
—

 
(100
)
 
n/m

Net loss
(142,125
)
 
(70,596
)
 
(128,457
)
 
101

 
(45
)
Net loss (income) attributable to non-controlling interests
—

 
(176
)
 
491

 
(100
)
 
(136
)
Net loss attributable to Ocwen stockholders
$
(142,125
)
 
$
(70,772
)
 
$
(127,966
)
 
101

 
(45
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Segment income (loss) from continuing operations before taxes:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Servicing
$
(70,770
)
 
$
(31,948
)
 
$
46,680

 
122
 %
 
(168
)%
Lending
40,733

 
11,154

 
(4,431
)
 
265

 
(352
)
Corporate Items and Other
(96,454
)
 
(50,682
)
 
(186,222
)
 
90

 
(73
)
 
$
(126,491
)
 
$
(71,476
)
 
$
(143,973
)
 
77

 
(50
)
n/m: not meaningful
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

50


Year Ended December 31, 2019 versus 2018
Ocwen reported a net loss of $142.1 million in 2019, largely impacted by $65.0 million re-engineering costs associated with the integration of PHH, a $53.0 million net fair value decline of MSRs due to changes in interest rates and valuation assumptions, and $15.6 million tax expense related to our foreign jurisdictions. While many factors impacted our performance in 2019 and 2018 as discussed below, the increase in our net loss compared to 2018 is primarily explained by the $64.0 million bargain purchase gain on the acquisition of PHH recorded in 2018.
Total revenue was $1.1 billion in 2019, $60.3 million or 6% higher than 2018, mostly due to $38.4 million additional servicing revenue and $26.1 million additional reverse mortgage revenue. The $38.4 million increase in servicing and subservicing fees is primarily due to the increase in the average portfolio serviced resulting from the acquisition of PHH on October 4, 2018 with such increase being partially offset by a decline in completed modifications. Reverse mortgage revenue, net increased $26.1 million, or 43%, as compared to 2018 largely due to a $37.2 million favorable net change in the fair values of our HECM reverse mortgage loans and the HMBS-related borrowings due to higher UPB and interest rate changes, and the fair value election in the first quarter of 2019 for future draw commitments on HECM reverse mortgage loans purchased or originated after December 31, 2018. See Segment Results of Operations for additional information.
We reported a $120.9 million loss in MSR valuation adjustments, net in 2019, mostly driven by a $215.1 million portfolio runoff, a $175.6 million loss due to the decline in interest rates, partially offset by $269.8 million favorable assumption updates. The loss is mostly attributable to our forward MSR portfolio, with $0.3 million loss related to our reverse MSR reported in our Lending segment. MSR valuation adjustments, net in 2019 decreased $32.6 million, as compared to 2018 primarily due to assumption updates. See Segment Results of Operations - Servicing for additional information.
Operating expenses decreased $105.1 million, or 13%, compared to 2018, largely due to our integration and cost reduction initiatives, with $673.9 million recognized in 2019 compared to $779.0 million in 2018. Operating expenses for 2019 include recoveries of $43.4 million of prior professional fees and other operating expenses from service providers and a mortgage insurer. The $105.1 million reduction in operating expenses in 2019 is partially offset by $65.0 million re-engineering costs recorded in 2019 and the recognition of PHH operating expenses starting in the fourth quarter of 2018; i.e., 2018 operating expenses did not include PHH through October 4, 2018.
Compensation and benefits expense increased $15.5 million, or 5%, as compared to 2018 primarily due to the acquisition of the PHH workforce and $35.7 million severance and retention costs, partially offset by a decline in expenses resulting from our efforts to re-engineer our cost structure. Despite the increase in headcount at the time of the PHH acquisition, average total headcount in 2019 declined 10% as compared to 2018.
Professional services expense decreased $62.9 million, or 38%, as compared to 2018 primarily due to the $34.7 million recovery of prior expense from service providers and a mortgage insurer and a $16.8 million decline in litigation provisions. Also contributing to the decline in Professional services expense in 2019 is the $13.7 million expenses incurred in 2018 in connection with the acquisition of PHH.
Servicing and origination expense decreased $22.3 million, or 17%, as compared to 2018 primarily due to a $7.4 million reduction in government-insured claim loss provisions in line with a decline in claims and a $7.6 million decrease in provisions for non-recoverable servicing advances and receivables.
Technology and communication expense decreased $19.1 million, or 19%, as compared to 2018 primarily because we no longer license the REALServicing servicing system from Altisource following our transition to Black Knight MSP, a $10.3 million reduction in depreciation expense that is largely the result of a decline in capitalized technology investments, our closure of seven U.S. facilities and the effects of our other cost reduction efforts which include bringing technology services in-house. These declines were partially offset by an increase in expenses as a result of PHH expenses.
Occupancy and equipment expense increased $8.5 million, or 14%, as compared to 2018, due to PHH expenses and the recognition of accelerated amortization of ROU assets in connection with our decision to vacate leased properties in 2019 prior to the contractual maturity date of the lease agreements, offset in part by a decline resulting from our cost reduction efforts which include consolidating vendors and closing and consolidating certain facilities.
Other expenses decreased $24.8 million, or 94%, as compared to 2018 due to a $15.7 million decline in the provision for indemnification obligations that was largely due to favorable updates to default, defect and severity assumptions relative to historical performance, a $7.2 million expense recovery in connection with a settlement with a mortgage insurer and a $2.5 million savings in license fees due to our legal entity reorganization.
Interest expense increased $10.8 million, or 10%, mostly due to the $120.0 million SSTL upsize we executed in March 2019 and the new MSR financing facilities executed in 2019.
Pledged MSR liability expense relates to the MSR sale agreements with NRZ that do not achieve sale accounting and are presented on a gross basis in our financial statements. The $372.1 million expense in 2019 primarily includes a $437.7 million

51


net servicing fee remittance to NRZ partially offset by a $95.2 million amortization gain related to the lump-sum cash payments received from NRZ in connection with the 2017 Agreements and New RMSR Agreements in 2017 and 2018, and a $33.8 million fair value loss on the pledged MSR liability.
 
Years Ended December 31,
 
Change
Amounts in millions
2019
 
2018
 
2017
 
2019 vs 2018
 
2018 vs 2017
Net servicing fee remittance to NRZ (a)
$
437.7

 
$
396.7

 
$
254.2

 
$
41.0

 
$
142.5

2017/18 lump sum amortization (gain)
(95.2
)
 
(148.9
)
 
(43.9
)
 
53.7

 
(105.0
)
Pledged MSR liability fair value (gain) loss (b)
33.8

 
(82.2
)
 
26.0

 
116.0

 
(108.2
)
Other
(4.2
)
 
6.0

 
—

 
(10.2
)
 
6.0

Pledged MSR liability expense
$
372.1

 
$
171.6

 
$
236.3

 
$
200.5

 
$
(64.7
)
(a)
Offset by corresponding amount recorded in Servicing and subservicing fee - See below table.
(b)
Offset by corresponding amount recorded in MSR valuation adjustments, net - See below table.
The below table reflects the condensed statement of operations together with the included amounts related to the NRZ pledged MSRs that offset each other (nil impact on net income/loss). Net servicing fee remittance and pledged MSR fair value changes are presented on a gross basis and are offset by corresponding amounts presented in other statement of operations line items. In addition, because we record both our pledged MSRs and the associated pledged MSR liability at fair value, the changes in fair value of the pledged MSR liability were offset by the changes in fair value of the MSRs pledged, presented in MSR valuation adjustments, net. Accordingly, only the $95.2 million lump sum amortization gain and the $4.2 million in “Other” affect our net earnings.
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2019
 
2018
Dollars in millions
Statement of Operations
 
NRZ Pledged MSR-related Amounts (a)
 
Statement of Operations
 
NRZ Pledged MSR-related Amounts (a)
Total revenue
$
1,123.4

 
$
437.7

 
$
1,063.0

 
$
396.7

MSR valuation adjustments, net
(120.9
)
 
33.8

 
(153.5
)
 
(82.2
)
Total operating expenses
673.9

 
—

 
779.0

 
—

Total other expense, net
(455.1
)
 
(471.5
)
 
(202.0
)
 
(314.5
)
Loss before income taxes
$
(126.5
)
 
$
—

 
$
(71.5
)
 
$
—

(a)
Amounts included in the specific statement of operations line items.
See Note 10 — Rights to MSRs to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Segment Results of Operations - Servicing for additional information.
Other, net increased $15.3 million as compared to 2018 primarily due to other income recognized in connection with call rights exercised by, or on behalf of NRZ for MSRs underlying the agreements with NRZ. See Note 10 — Rights to MSRs for additional information.
Although we incurred a pre-tax loss for 2019 of $126.5 million, we recorded income tax expense of $15.6 million due to the mix of earnings among different tax jurisdictions with different statutory tax rates. Our overall effective tax rates for 2019 and 2018 were (12.4)% and (0.7)%, respectively. Under our transfer pricing agreements, our operations in India and Philippines are compensated on a cost-plus basis for the services they provide, such that even when we have a consolidated pre-tax loss from operations these foreign operations have taxable income, which is subject to statutory tax rates in these jurisdictions that are significantly higher than the U.S. statutory rate of 21%. The change in income tax expense for 2019, compared with 2018, was primarily due to tax expense on the gain recognized in the USVI on the merger of OLS into PMC and the effects of revaluing our Indian deferred tax assets as a result of the significant corporate rate reduction enacted in India, as well as increased income tax expense as a result of recognizing income previously deferred for tax purposes related to our NRZ agreements. In addition, income tax expense related to uncertain tax positions increased by $8.2 million in 2019 as compared to 2018.

52


Financial Condition Summary
 
December 31,
 
 
 
 
 
2019
 
2018
 
$ Change
 
% Change
Cash and cash equivalents
$
428,339

 
$
329,132

 
$
99,207

 
30
 %
Restricted cash
64,001

 
67,878

 
(3,877
)
 
(6
)
Mortgage servicing rights (MSRs), at fair value
1,486,395

 
1,457,149

 
29,246

 
2

Advances and match funded advances
1,056,523

 
1,186,676

 
(130,153
)
 
(11
)
Loans held for sale
275,269

 
242,622

 
32,647

 
13

Loans held for investment, at fair value
6,292,938

 
5,498,719

 
794,219

 
14

Other assets
802,734

 
612,040

 
190,694

 
31

Total assets
$
10,406,199

 
$
9,394,216

 
$
1,011,983

 
11
 %