HUD Audit Report
HUD Audit Report
HUD Audit Report
/signed/
From: Thomas R. McEnanly, Director, Financial Audits Division, Washington DC, GAF
Subject: HUDs Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements
Audit (Reissued)
Attached is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector
Generals (OIG) independent auditors report on HUDs consolidated financial statements and
reports on internal controls over financial reporting and compliance with laws and regulations.
HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on
recommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision,
please respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish
us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.
The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8M, requires that OIG post its
publicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at
http://www.hudoig.gov.
If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me at
202-402-8216.
Audit Report Number: 2017-FO-0005
Date: March 1, 2017
Highlights
What We Found
The total amounts of errors corrected in HUDs notes and consolidated financial statements were
$516.4 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively. There were several other unresolved audit matters,
which restricted our ability to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to express an opinion.
These unresolved audit matters relate to (1) the Office of General Counsels refusal to sign the
management representation letter, (2) HUDs improper use of cumulative and first-in, first-out
budgetary accounting methods of disbursing community planning and development program
funds, (3) the $4.2 billion in nonpooled loan assets from Ginnie Maes stand-alone financial
statements that we could not audit due to inadequate support, (4) the improper accounting for
certain HUD assets and liabilities, and (5) material differences between HUDs subledger and
general ledger accounts. This audit report contains 11 material weaknesses, 7 significant
deficiencies, and 5 instances of noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations.
What We Recommend
In addition to recommendations made in audit reports 2017-FO-0001, 2017-FO-0002, and 2017-
FO-0003, we recommend that HUD (1) reassess its current consolidated financial statement and
notes review process to ensure that sufficient internal controls are in place to prevent and detect
errors, (2) evaluate the current content of HUDs consolidated note disclosures to ensure
compliance with regulations and GAAP, and (3) develop a plan to ensure that restatements are
properly reflected in all notes impacted.
Table of Contents
Background and Objective......................................................................................4
Appendixes ..............................................................................................................33
A. Auditee Comments to Reissued Independent Auditors Report .......................... 33
B. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds To Be Put to Better Use ...................... 35
C. HUDs Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) Consolidated Financial
Statements and Notes ................................................................................................ 36
3
Background and Objective
We are required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended by the Government
Management Reform Act of 1994 and implemented by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Bulletin 15-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, to audit the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD) principal financial statements or select
an independent auditor to do so. The objective of our audit was to express an opinion on the fair
presentation of these principal financial statements.
In planning our audit of HUDs principal financial statements, we considered internal controls
over financial reporting and tested compliance with selected provisions of applicable laws,
regulations, and government policies that may materially affect the consolidated principal
financial statements. Providing an opinion on internal controls or compliance with selected
provisions of laws, regulations, and government policies was not an objective, and, accordingly,
we do not express such an opinion.
On November 15, 2016, we issued an independent auditors report 1 stating that the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was unable to provide final fiscal years
2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes in a timeframe that
would allow us to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to determine whether they were free
from material misstatement. We also reported on the delays encountered in the material
weakness, Weak Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting Led to Errors and Delays in the
Preparation of Financial Statements and Notes. 2
The delays were due to insufficiently designed and implemented financial reporting processes
and internal controls that were put into place because of HUDs transition of its core financial
system to a Federal shared service provider (FSSP). HUD inadequately planned and tested the
changes to HUDs financial reporting process before the transition. Additionally, late
restatements performed by HUDs component entities, the Government National Mortgage
Association (Ginnie Mae) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA), contributed to the delay
in providing final consolidated financial statements. 3 As a result, we were unable to provide an
opinion on HUDs fiscal years 2016 and 2015 financial statements. While there were other
material matters that supported our basis for disclaimer, this was the primary reason for our
disclaimer of opinion. HUD published its consolidated financial statements and our disclaimer
of opinion in HUDs 2016 agency financial report (AFR).
1
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report 2017-FO-0004, Independent Auditors Report, issued November
15, 2016
2
OIG Audit Report 2017-FO-0003, Additional Details To Supplement Our Independent Auditors Report, issued
November 15, 2016
3
OIG Audit Report 2017-FO-0004, Independent Auditors Report on HUDs Financial Statements, issued
November 18, 2016
4
Despite having to disclaim on HUDs fiscal years 2016 and 2015 financial statements and notes,
we continued our review of the financial statements. Our review identified material errors and
misstatements in the financial statements and notes. The results of that review are contained in
this report (see Material Weaknesses section) and update the material weakness, Weak Internal
Controls Over Financial Reporting Led to Errors and Delays in the Preparation of Financial
Statements and Notes, reported in Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit reports 2017-FO-0003
and 2017-FO-0004.
We notified HUD management in early December 2016 and requested that it perform its own
review. HUD concluded its review and agreed with us that the pervasiveness and scope of the
errors contained in the financial statements justified the need to reissue the statements to correct
the errors. HUD withdrew its AFR, and on December 28, 2016, HUDs Acting Chief Financial
Officer notified the Inspector General that HUD had requested from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) an extension for submitting its AFR from November 15, 2016, to March 1,
2017.
Our review of the reissued fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements entailed
reviewing the revised consolidated financial statements to (1) validate that appropriate revisions
were made to the financial statements and notes to correct all errors that were identified and (2)
confirm that the financial statements and notes are presented in conformity with OMB Circular
A-136 and United States generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
This report is intended solely for the use of HUD management, OMB, and Congress. However,
this report is a matter of public record, and its distribution is not limited.
5
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
To the Secretary,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Introduction
The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires HUD to prepare the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2016 and 2015 (restated); the related
consolidated statements of net cost, changes in net position, and combined statement of
budgetary resources for the fiscal years then ended; and the related notes to the financial
statements. We were engaged to audit those financial statements in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards accepted in the United States of America and OMB
Bulletin 15-02.
4
This report is supplemented by four separate reports issued by HUD OIG to provide a more detailed discussion of
the internal control and compliance issues and to provide specific recommendations to HUD management. The
findings have been included in the Internal Control and Compliance With Laws and Regulations sections of the
independent auditors report. The supplemental reports are available on the HUD OIG Internet site at
https://www.hudoig.gov and are entitled (1) Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015
(Restated) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Financial Statement Audit (audit report 2017-FO-
0003, issued November 15, 2016); (2) Audit of Federal Housing Administration Financial Statements for Fiscal
Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) (audit report 2017-FO-0002, issued November 14, 2016); (3) Audit of the
Government National Mortgage Associations Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated)
(audit report 2017-FO-0001, issued November 14, 2016); and (4) HUDs Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated)
Consolidated Financial Statements Audit (Reissued) (audit report 2017-FO-0005, issued March 1, 2017).
6
preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement,
whether due to fraud or error.
Auditors Responsibility
We are required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended by the Government
Management Reform Act of 1994 and implemented by OMB Bulletin 15-02, Audit
Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, to audit HUDs principal financial statements or
select an independent auditor to do so.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the fair presentation of these principal financial
statements in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America. Because of the matters described in the Basis for Disclaimer of
Opinion section, however, we were not able to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to
provide a basis for an audit opinion. The audit was conducted in accordance with government
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which require the auditor
to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free from material misstatement.
We identified several other matters for which we were unable to obtain adequate audit evidence
to provide a basis of opinion on the fiscal years 2016 and 2015 (restated) financial statements.
When evaluating these areas and their impacts on the financial statements as a whole, we
determined that multiple material financial statement line items were impacted and the issues
identified were pervasive and material to the fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial
statements. There were no other satisfactory audit procedures that we could adopt to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence with respect to these unresolved matters. Readers are cautioned
that amounts reported in the financial statements and related notes may not be reliable.
The other matters that we identified related to (1) improper budgetary accounting, (2) a
disclaimer of opinion on Ginnie Maes financial statements, (3) unvalidated grant accrual
estimates, (4) improper and unreliable accounting for assets and liabilities, and (5) significant
unreconciled subledger to general ledger differences. Additional details are discussed below.
7
Improper budgetary accounting. HUD continued to use budgetary accounting for its
Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) programs that was not performed
in accordance with Federal GAAP, which resulted in misstatements in HUDs combined
statement of budgetary resources. Therefore, we could not assess whether the balances
reported were reasonable.
HUD used a cumulative and first-in first-out (FIFO) method 5 to disburse and commit CPD
program funds that was not in accordance with GAAP for Federal grants. These methods
were used to determine the amount of uncommitted HOME Investment Partnerships
Program grant funds that would be subject to reallocation and recapture under section
218(g) of the HOME Investment Partnership Act and to process disbursements for CPD
formula programs, respectively. The effects of these methodologies were considered
pervasive because of the dollar risk exposure and volume of CPD grant activities from
several thousand grantees (as of September 30, 2016, approximately $2.7 billion in
disbursements and $2.4 billion in undisbursed obligations were impacted that were related to
the HOME program, Community Development Block Grant, Housing for Persons with
AIDS, and Emergency Shelter Grant) and the system limitations of HUDs grant
management and mixed accounting system to properly account for these grant transactions
in accordance with the statutory requirements and GAAP.
Due to these issues, we determined that financial transactions related to CPDs formula-
based programs that entered HUDs accounting system had been processed incorrectly.
Although FIFO has been removed for disbursements made from fiscal year 2015 and
forward grants, this method will not be removed retroactively from prior-year grants.
Thus, based on the pervasiveness of their effects, in our opinion, the obligated and
unobligated balance brought forward and obligated and unobligated balances reported in
HUDs combined statement of budgetary resources for fiscal year 2015 and in prior years
were materially misstated. The related amount of material misstatements for these CPD
programs in the accompanying combined statement of budgetary resources could not be
readily determined to reliably support the budgetary balances reported by HUD at yearend
due to the inadequacy of evidence available from HUDs mixed accounting and grants
management system.
Disclaimer of opinion on Ginnie Mae financial statements. In fiscal year 2016, for the
third consecutive year, Ginnie Mae could not bring its material asset balances related to its
nonpooled loan assets into an auditable state. Specifically, we were unable to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to express an opinion on the fairness of the $4.2 billion (net
5
The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) Handbook defines FIFO as a cost flow assumption.
The first goods purchased or produced are assumed to be the first goods sold (FASAB Handbook, Version 13,
appendix E, page 30, dated June 2014). In addition, the Financial Audit Manual states that the use of first-in, first-
out or other arbitrary means to liquidate obligations based on outlays is not generally acceptable (GAO-PCIE (U.S.
Government Accountability Office-Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiency) Financial Audit Manual,
Internal Control Phase, Budget Control Objectives, page 395, F-3). In the context of HUDs use of this method, the
first funds appropriated and allocated to the grantee are the first funds committed and disbursed, regardless of the
source year in which grant funds were committed for the activity.
8
of allowance) in nonpooled loan assets from Ginnie Maes defaulted issuers portfolio, and
Ginnie Mae continued to improperly account for FHA reimbursable costs as an expense
instead of capitalizing the costs as an asset.
A number of Ginnie Mae balance sheet line items made up the $4.2 billion in nonpooled
loan assets, 6 which were consolidated into the other non-credit-reform loans reported on
HUDs consolidated balance sheet. This condition occurred because Ginnie Mae lacked
financial management systems capable of handling its loan-level transaction accounting
requirements. Therefore, we were again unable to perform all of the audit procedures
needed to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence. As a result, we determined that our audit
scope was insufficient to express an opinion on Ginnie Maes $4.2 billion in nonpooled
loan assets as of September 30, 2016.
Ginnie Mae continued to improperly account for FHA reimbursable costs as an expense
instead of capitalizing the costs as an asset in fiscal year 2016. This practice caused Ginnie
Maes asset and net income line items to be misstated, resulting in misstatements in HUDs
consolidated assets, expenses, and net position. Due to multiple years of incorrect
accounting, we believe the cumulative effect of the errors identified was material.
However, we were unable to determine with sufficient accuracy a proposed adjustment to
correct the errors due to insufficient available data.
6
These are (1) mortgage loans held for investment, net ($3.47 billion); (2) claims receivable, net ($709 million); (3)
accrued interest receivable, net ($19 million); and (4) acquired property, net ($41 million).
9
Improper and unreliable accounting for assets and liabilities. HUD did not properly
account for several types of assets and liabilities reported on its balance sheet, causing
misstatements or unreliable balances. Specifically, (1) balances reported for non-FHA loan
guarantees and property, plant, and equipment balances could not be relied upon; (2)
payments advanced to Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) grantees for investment
purposes were not recorded as advances; and (3) loans receivable related to the Emergency
Homeowners Loan Program (EHLP) could not be audited.
During fiscal year 2016, HUD was undergoing a reconciliation and cleanup effort for
balances related to its non-FHA loan guarantee programs. Many discrepancies had been
identified, and adjustments had been processed during the fiscal year to address some of the
discrepancies identified totaling $17.3 billion. However, as of September 30, 2016, HUD
was in the process of researching and resolving additional discrepancies identified, and the
review was ongoing. As a result, we could not rely on HUDs non-FHA loan guarantee
balances, including its loan guarantee liability ($303 million), foreclosed property ($36
million), unpaid obligations ($22.4 million), and memorandum accounts used to track the
status of loan guarantee authority. There were no other compensating audit procedures that
could be performed to obtain reasonable assurance regarding these balances.
HUDs accounting for its property, plant, and equipment did not comply with Federal
GAAP. Specifically, HUD could not support balances related to internal use software
totaling $254.3 million. In addition, HUD did not adequately record property, plant, and
equipment balances related to furniture and equipment and leasehold improvements.
Therefore, the total HUD proper property, plant, and equipment balance of $297 million
could not be relied upon.
HUD authorized recipients of Federal funds to retain funding advanced to them before
incurring eligible expenses; however, HUD did not recognize these funds as advances on
its financial statements in accordance with Statements on Federal Financial Accounting
Standards 1. As of June 30, 2016, as much as $260.1 million was being held in investment
accounts with IHBG grantees, which represented an advance in accordance with the
standards. HUD elected to present these as expenses on its statement of net cost once they
were disbursed. Therefore, we believe the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH)
prepayment reported on HUDs consolidated balance sheet and expenses reported on
HUDs consolidated statement of net cost were likely misstated as of September 30, 2016.
Lastly, weaknesses in the accounting for the EHLP loans receivable portfolio continued,
which limited our ability to audit during the fiscal year. A data review was performed
during the fiscal year as a result of serious deficiencies in the accuracy of the loan balances
identified in our prior-year audit report. 7 However, adjustments to correct the loan data
were being made as of the end of our fieldwork. Therefore, we were unable to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to express an opinion on the fairness of the balances
reported in the direct loan and loan guarantees line item reported on HUDs consolidated
7
OIG Audit Report 2015-DP-0004, Loan Accounting System, issued December 9, 2014
10
balance sheet as of September 30, 2016, related to EHLP. The total loan principal issued
under this program was $246 million; however, we were unable to determine whether the
current balance recognized on the consolidated balance sheet of $103.2 million was an
accurate net realizable value of the portfolio.
Significant unreconciled subledger to general ledger differences. During the fiscal year,
HUD initiated a subledger review and identified material differences between its
subledgers and general ledger accounts. As of September 30, 2016, its subledger review
was ongoing, and there was an unreconciled balance of $29.4 billion. These differences
remained unresolved mainly because HUD could not identify and locate sufficient
documentation to support material United States Standard General Ledger (USSGL)
accounts. The reconciling differences were material and pervasive and impacted several
USSGL accounts and financial statement line items. A total of $27.9 billion represented
differences in unpaid obligation balances. The remaining $1.5 billion difference impacted
the PIH prepayments (advances), liability for nonentity assets not reported on its statement
of custodial activity (other liabilities), loan guarantee liability, and account receivable
balances reported on HUDs consolidated balance sheet. While progress had been made in
the resolution of differences since September 30, 2016, differences remained that,
combined, were material to the financial statements. Due to HUDs inability to support the
balances recorded in the USSGL with sufficient, adequate documentation, we were unable
to rely on the balances presented in HUDs consolidated balance sheet and the combined
statement of budgetary resources.
Disclaimer of Opinion
Because of the significance of the matters described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion
section above, we were not able to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to provide an
audit opinion on HUDs principal financial statements and accompanying notes as of September
30, 2016 and 2015 (restated), and its net costs, changes in net position, and budgetary resources
for the fiscal year then ended. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the financial
statements.
Emphasis of Matter
Reissued Fiscal Year 2016 and 2015 Consolidated Financial Statements
In our audit opinion, 8 issued November 15, 2016, one basis for our disclaimer was that HUD was
unable to provide final consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes in a timeframe
that would allow us to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to determine whether they were
free from material misstatement. After we issued our disclaimer of opinion, we continued our
review of HUDs financial statement presentation and notes and identified material pervasive
errors throughout 19 of HUDs 31 notes 9 with an absolute value totaling $278.5 billion and an
error in the classification between budgetary and nonbudgetary credit program financing
8
OIG Audit Report 2017-FO-0004, Independent Auditors Report
9
During HUDs reissuance of its consolidated financial statements, it determined to remove a note that was not
required per OMB Circular A-136 and GAAP. Therefore, there are 30 notes in HUDs reissued consolidated
financial statements.
11
accounts on HUDs statement of budgetary resources with an absolute value totaling $557
million. In early December 2016, we brought these errors to the attention of HUD management,
and HUD determined that reissuance was necessary. Therefore, HUD reissued its fiscal years
2016 and 2015 (restated) consolidated financial statements.
Through its correction process, HUD identified additional note errors and found an error in its
presentation of FHAs fiscal year 2015 restatement. FHAs restatement included a $1.4 billion
adjustment to its cumulative results of operations beginning balance on the statement of changes
in net position. HUD made this adjustment to its consolidated statement of changes in net
position but presented the change in the beginning balance, not as a correction of error, 10 as
reported correctly by FHA. In total, the absolute values of corrections to HUDs notes and
principle financial statements were approximately $516.4 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively.
The notes that were impacted by the corrections were Note 1-Entity and Mission; Note 2-
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies; Note 3-Entity and Non-Entity Assets; Note 4-Fund
Balance With the U.S Treasury; Note 6-Investments; Note 7-Accounts Receivable (Net); Note 8-
Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees, Non-Federal Borrowers; Note 12-Other Assets; Note 13-
Liabilities Covered and Not Covered by Budgetary; Note 14-Debt; Note 16-MBS [mortgage-
backed securities] Liability; Note 17-Other Liabilities; Note 18-Financial Instruments with Off-
Balance Sheet Risk; Note 20-Funds from Dedicated Collections; Note 24-Net Costs of HUDs
Cross-Cutting Programs; Note 26-Commitments Under HUDs Grant, Subsidy, and Loan
Programs; Note 27-Apportionment Categories of Obligations Incurred; Note 28-Explanation of
Differences between the Statement of Budgetary Resources and the Budget of the United States
Government; Note 29-Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget; and Note 30-
Restatement of the Departments Fiscal Year 2015 Financial Statements. Additional detail
regarding the errors identified and corrected is further disclosed in note 30 of HUDs
consolidated financial statements.
We attributed these errors to pervasive weaknesses in all elements of HUD OCFO internal
controls: (1) control environment, (2) risk assessment, (3) control activities, (4) information and
communication, and (5) monitoring. These weaknesses are further explained in the material
weakness, Weak Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting Led to Errors and Delays in the
Preparation of Financial Statements and Notes, described further in this audit report. This
material weakness updated the financial reporting material weakness we reported in our fiscal
year 2016 internal control audit report. 11
As a result of what is described above, we are withdrawing our previously issued independent
auditors report, dated November 15, 2016, and replacing it with this report, which removes the
basis for disclaimer regarding our inability to review the final consolidated financial statements
due to management-imposed delays in completing the statements. However, while we audited
10
The beginning balance, as adjusted, was not impacted (beginning balance + correction of error = beginning
balance, as adjusted on the statement of net position).
11
OIG Audit Report 2017-FO-0003, Additional Details To Supplement Our Independent Auditors Report, issued
November 15, 2016, material weakness, Weak Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting Led to Errors and Delays
in the Preparation of Financial Statements and Notes
12
the reissued consolidated financial statements and notes, our previous audit opinion of a
disclaimer of opinion remains unchanged due to other material matters identified in our audit,
which continue to support our disclaimer of opinion.
However, there were other material misstatements in the fiscal year 2016 financial statements in
which no adjustments had been made. Specifically, (1) regarding the use of the FIFO method to
liquidate obligations under CPDs formula grant programs, no adjustments had been made
because the specific amounts of misstatements and their related effects were unknown and (2)
regarding advanced funds held by grantees for IHBG grantees, which totaled as much as $260
million as of June 30, 2016, an amount could not be reasonably determined as of September 30,
2016, because HUD could not provide the information needed to quantify the amount. These
amounts were not included in the financial statements due to HUDs disagreement regarding the
presentation of these advances. Additional details on these items can be found in note 30 to the
financial statements.
13
prevails. This forecast method helps project how the estimate will be affected by different
economic scenarios but does not address the risk that the models may not accurately reflect current
borrower behavior or may contain technical errors. Our opinion was not modified with respect to
this matter.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
U.S. GAAP requires that certain information be presented to supplement the basic general-
purpose financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic general-purpose
financial statements, is required by FASAB, which considers it to be an essential part of financial
reporting for placing the basic general-purpose financial statements into an appropriate
operational, economic, or historical context. We did not audit and do not express an opinion or
provide any assurance on this information; however, we applied certain limited procedures in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which
consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the
information and comparing the information for consistency with managements responses to the
auditors inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge the auditor obtained
during the audit of the basic financial statements. These limited procedures do not provide
sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide assurance on the information.
In its fiscal year 2016 AFR, HUD presents required supplemental stewardship information and
required supplementary information. The required supplemental stewardship information
presents information on investments in non-Federal physical property and human capital and
investments in research and development. In the required supplementary information, HUD
presents a management discussion and analysis of operations and combining statements of
budgetary resources. HUD also elected to present consolidating balance sheets and related
consolidating statements of changes in net position as required supplementary information. The
consolidating information is presented for additional analysis of the financial statements rather
than to present the financial position and changes in net position of HUDs major activities. This
information is not a required part of the basic financial statements but is supplementary
information required by FASAB and OMB Circular A-136.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements
as a whole. HUDs agency financial report contains other information that is not a required part
of the basic financial statements. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in the audit of the principal financial statements, and, accordingly, we do not
express an opinion or provide assurance on it.
14
Report on Internal Control
Additional details on our findings regarding HUDs, FHAs, and Ginnie Maes internal controls
are summarized below and were provided in separate audit reports to HUD management. 12
These additional details also augment the discussions of instances in which HUD had not
complied with applicable laws and regulations; the information regarding our audit objectives,
scope, and methodology; and recommendations to HUD management resulting from our audit.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to
prevent or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a
deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control that is less severe than a material
weakness yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. A
material weakness is a deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control, such that
there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entitys financial statements
will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described above and was not
designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or
material weaknesses. However, we noted in our reports the following eleven material
weaknesses and seven significant deficiencies.
Material Weaknesses
A material weakness is a deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control, such that
there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entitys financial statements
will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We noted that the following
deficiencies met the definition of a material weakness.
Weak Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting Led to Errors and Delays in the Preparation
of Financial Statements and Notes
Internal controls over HUDs financial reporting process were weak, causing HUD to be unable
to provide yearend financial statements and accompanying notes in a timeframe that would allow
for sufficient OIG audit review by the required date of November 15, 2016. After the issuance
of HUDs fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements in its AFR, we identified
pervasive material errors in the financial statements and notes totaling $557 million and $278.5
billion, respectively. We also identified $19.5 billion in changes that were made to the financial
statements provided for audit and the financial statements published in HUDs AFR, which were
not communicated to us. Additionally, Ginnie Mae closed material accounts prematurely,
causing material misstatements. Finally, HUD performed 2,868 journal vouchers to adjust
transactional data in its general ledger, primarily due to data quality issues.
12
Audit Report 2017-FO-0003, Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Financial Statements, issued November 15, 2016; Audit Report
2016-FO-0002, Federal Housing Administration Fiscal Year 2016 and 2015 (Restated) Financial Statements Audit,
issued November 14, 2016; Audit Report 2017-FO-0001, Audit of the Government National Mortgage Associations
Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) Financial Statements, issued November 14, 2016
15
Ineffective governance over HUDs transition to an FSSP, Treasurys Administrative Resource
Center (ARC), and Ginnie Maes budgetary accounting created an ineffective financial reporting
environment that could not prevent and detect errors in a timely manner. As a result, (1) we
could not audit HUDs yearend financial statements and accompanying notes by the required
date, (2) HUD had to withdraw its fiscal year 2016 AFR and state that the published report could
not be relied upon, (3) HUDs fiscal year 2016 third quarter financial statement notes contained
unsupported balances and errors totaling $477 million, and (4) HUD had to restate its fiscal year
2015 statement of budgetary resources due to an error with an absolute value of $2 billion.
Further, HUDs extensive reliance on manual journal vouchers increased the risk of error in its
general ledger and financial statements.
HUD Assets and Liabilities Were Misstated and Not Adequately Supported
HUD did not properly account for, have internal controls over, or have adequate support for all
of its assets and liabilities. Specifically, (1) CPD did not validate its accrued grant liabilities
estimates; (2) HUDs accounting for its cash management process did not include the recognition
of receivables and payables when incurred and understated its prepayment balance; (3) HUD did
not recognize a prepayment for funds advanced to its IHBG grantees that were used for
investment; (4) EHLP could not be audited; (5) balances related to HUDs loan guarantee
programs were not reliable; and (6) HUD did not properly account for its property, plant, and
equipment. These problems occurred because of continued weaknesses in HUDs internal
controls and a lack of communication between OCFO and the program offices. As a result,
several financial statement line items were misstated or could not be audited as of September 30,
2016. Specifically, (1) CPDs accrued grant liabilities estimates could not be audited; (2) HUDs
PIH prepayments and accounts receivable balances contained errors with an absolute value of
approximately $476.2 million and $201.2 million, respectively, and accounts payable were
understated by an unknown amount; (3) HUDs expenses on its statement of net costs were
overstated by $293.2 million; (4) loans receivable balances for EHLP could not be audited and
were potentially misstated; (5) balances related to HUDs loan guarantee programs were
misstated by unknown amounts; and (6) HUDs $297 million balance for property, plant, and
equipment was not supported.
16
CPDs Formula Grant Accounting Did Not Comply With GAAP, Resulting in Misstatements on
the Financial Statements
CPDs formula grant program accounting continued to depart from GAAP because of its use of
the FIFO method 13 for committing and disbursing obligations. Since 2013, we have reported that
the information system used, the Integrated Disbursement Information System (IDIS) Online, a
grants management system, was not designed to comply with Federal financial management
system requirements. Further, HUDs plan to eliminate FIFO from IDIS Online was applied
only to fiscal year 2015 and future grants and not to fiscal years 2014 and earlier. As a result,
budget year grant obligation balances continued to be misstated, and disbursements made using
an incorrect USSGL attribute resulted in additional misstatements. Although FIFO has been
removed from fiscal year 2015 and forward grants, modifications to IDIS are necessary for the
system to comply with FFMIA and USSGL transaction records. The inability of IDIS Online to
provide an audit trail of all financial events affected by the FIFO method prevented the financial
effects of FIFO on HUDs consolidated financial statements from being quantified. Further,
because of the amount and pervasiveness of the funds susceptible to the FIFO method and the
noncompliant internal control structure in IDIS Online, the combined statement of budgetary
resources and the consolidated balance sheet were materially misstated. The effects of not
removing the FIFO method retroactively will continue to have implications on future years
financial statement audit opinions until the impact is assessed to be immaterial.
13
The FASAB Handbook defines FIFO as a cost flow assumption. The first goods purchased or produced are
assumed to be the first goods sold (FASAB Handbook, Version 13, appendix E, page 30, dated June 2014). In
addition, the Financial Audit Manual states that the use of first-in, first-out or other arbitrary means to liquidate
obligations based on outlays is not generally acceptable (GAO-PCIE Financial Audit Manual, Internal Control
Phase, Budget Control Objectives, page 395, F-3). In the context of HUDs use of this method, the first funds
appropriated and allocated to the grantee are the first funds committed and disbursed, regardless of the source year
in which grant funds were committed for the activity.
17
financial statements as of September 30, 2016. These assets related to (1) claims receivable, net
($709 million); (2) mortgage loans held for investment, net ($3.47 billion); (3) accrued interest
receivable, net ($19 million); and (4) acquired property, net ($41 million). This condition
occurred because Ginnie Mae lacked financial management systems capable of handling its loan-
level transaction accounting requirements. Therefore, we were again unable to perform all of the
audit procedures needed to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence. As a result, we determined
that our audit scope was insufficient to express an opinion on Ginnie Maes $4.2 billion in
nonpooled loan assets as of September 30, 2016.
Ginnie Maes Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting Continued To Have Weaknesses
In fiscal year 2015, we reported that Ginnie Maes internal controls over financial reporting were
not effective. This condition continued, and some new issues were identified in fiscal year 2016.
These material weaknesses in internal controls were issues related to the (1) improper accounting
for FHAs reimbursable costs and accrued interest earned on nonpooled loans; (2) accounting for
cash in transit; (3) revenue accrual accounting; and (4) several other accounting issues, such as
advances, fixed assets, and financial statement note disclosures. The first three issues were
repeat findings from prior years, and the last one was new in fiscal year 2016. These conditions
occurred because of Ginnie Maes failure to ensure that (1) adequate monitoring and oversight of
its accounting and reporting functions were in place and operating effectively and (2) accounting
policies and procedures were developed, finalized, and appropriately implemented. As a result,
the risk that material misstatements in Ginnie Maes financial statements would not be prevented
or detected increased.
14
This was classified as a material weakness, based on the findings on financial management governance reported in
Audit Report 2017-FO-0003, Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Financial Statement Audit, and Audit Report 2017-FO-0001, Audit
of the Government National Mortgage Associations Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) Financial Statements.
18
In fiscal year 2016, Ginnie Maes executive management began to address the financial
management governance problems cited in our fiscal years 2015 and 2014 audit reports. While
significant progress was made this year, more work is needed to fully address the issues cited in
our report. Specifically, these problems included issues in (1) keeping Ginnie Mae OCFOs
operations fully functional; (2) ensuring that emerging risks affecting its financial management
operations were identified, analyzed, and responded to appropriately and in a timely manner; (3)
establishing adequate and appropriate accounting policies and procedures and accounting
systems; and (4) implementing an effective entitywide governance of the models used to
generate accounting estimates for financial reporting. Some of these conditions continued
because the implementation of the corrective action plans took longer than anticipated. This
issue again contributed to Ginnie Maes inability to produce auditable financial statements for
the third consecutive fiscal year.
HUDs financial management governance remained ineffective during 2016. HUDs transition
to an FSSP for financial management services was punctuated by operational issues that were
made worse by a lack of mature financial management governance practices. Additionally, as
we have reported in prior-year audits, HUD did not have reliable financial information for
reporting and continued using its outdated legacy financial systems. Weaknesses in program and
component internal control that impacted financial reporting were able to develop in part due to a
lack of financial management governance processes. As a result, there were multiple
deficiencies in HUDs internal controls over financial reporting, resulting in misstatements on
the financial statements and noncompliance with laws and regulations.
FHAs Controls Over Financial Reporting Related to Budgetary Resources Had Weaknesses
In fiscal year 2016, we identified financial reporting control deficiencies related to FHAs
monitoring of its budgetary resources. Specifically, we found that errors were not prevented or
detected in a timely manner. These errors were related to the (1) discrepancies identified between
proprietary and budgetary accounts and (2) system-generated accounting report used for financial
reporting. Additionally, FHAs monitoring of its unliquidated obligation balances was not effective.
We attributed these conditions to FHAs ineffective monitoring and processing controls. As a
19
result, errors with an absolute amount totaling $680.2 million were not prevented or detected in a
timely manner. Finally, FHA missed the opportunity to recapture $276.5 million in invalid
obligations.
Significant Deficiencies
A significant deficiency is a deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control that is
less severe than a material weakness yet important enough to merit attention by those charged
with governance. We determined that the following deficiencies met the definition of a
significant deficiency.
20
HUD. We found that some access controls within the New Core Interface Solution were not
effective and some of the application security documentation was inaccurate. These weaknesses
occurred because of limited resources to perform the required tasks. As a result, some
contractors had inappropriate access to sensitive budget and general ledger financial transactions.
Further, inaccurate security documentation could lead to inappropriate decisions. In addition,
although HUD had taken action to address information system control weaknesses reported in
prior years, several of those weaknesses remained. Without adequate general and application
controls, there was no assurance that financial management applications and the data within them
were adequately protected.
Ginnie Mae Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight To Ensure Compliance With Federal
Regulations and Guidance
Ginnie Mae did not provide adequate oversight of its pool processing agent for the Integrated
Pool Management System (IPMS) to ensure that adequate controls over business processes
complied with Federal regulations and guidance. Specifically, (1) IPMS does not have adequate
controls that automatically track overrides in the system, (2) IPMS does not have automated
controls to prevent a pool processor from making changes to the master data without prior
approval, and (3) Ginnie Mae lacked policies and procedures for data management. These
conditions occurred because Ginnie Mae did not have policies for monitoring overrides and
IPMS does not sufficiently track the use of overrides or generate a report that captures changes.
As a result, Ginnie Maes data were susceptible to an increased risk of improper use of authority,
which could cause financial harm to Ginnie Mae by attaching its guarantee to mortgage-backed
securities.
21
framework a priority. FHAs failure to fully implement a control mechanism, such as the model
risk management governance framework, increased the risk of inconsistencies and errors in
financial reporting occurring without being detected or prevented.
We completed an additional review of the general and application controls over SFIS and the
Claims system and determined that the information system control weaknesses previously identified
in SFIS and Claims were being addressed. However, we found (1) weaknesses in Claims, which
included inconsistencies in error code, and (2) that the configuration information and the history of
system changes were not retained for more than 5 years. Further, we found (1) weaknesses in both
SFIS and Claims systems, which included that application and user access controls were not
effectively implemented or adequately managed, and (2) that management did not adequately
implement effective application configuration management. We also found that HUD Application
Release Tracking System documents for FHA applications were not processed and maintained
properly. These conditions occurred because some application controls were not sufficient. As a
result, the appropriate confidentiality, integrity, and availability of critical information may have
been negatively impacted. In addition, the information used to provide input to the FHA financial
statements could have been adversely affected.
22
HUDs Financial Management Systems Did Not Comply With the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act
In fiscal year 2016, we noted a number of instances of FFMIA noncompliance 15 within HUDs
financial management system. HUDs continued noncompliance was due to New Core
implementation challenges and a reliance on a number of legacy financial systems.
HUD Continued To Not Comply With the HOME Investment Partnership Act
HUD continued to not comply with section 218(g) of the HOME Investment Partnership Act
(also known as the HOME Statute) regarding grant commitment requirements. HUDs
misinterpretation of the plain language in the Act, the implementation of the cumulative method
and the FIFO technique, and the current recapture policies continued to result in HUDs
noncompliance with HOME Statute requirements. As a result, HUD continued to incorrectly
permit some jurisdictions to retain, commit, and disburse HOME Investment Partnerships
Program grant funds beyond the statutory deadline. HUD will continue to be noncompliant with
related laws and regulations until the cumulative method is no longer used to determine whether
grantees meet commitment deadlines required by the HOME Statute. Allowing grantees to
disburse funds from commitments made outside the 24-month statutory period may have caused
HUD to incur improper payments.
HUD Did Not Comply With Treasury Financial Manuals Rules on Cash Management or 2 CFR
Part 200
Since the implementation of its cash management policies in fiscal year 2013, PIH has made
significant progress toward compliance with Treasury Financial Manual rules on cash
management. 16 However, despite considerable efforts by HUDs Office of Housing Voucher
Programs, public housing agencies (PHA) maintained Federal cash in excess of their immediate
disbursement need for extended periods. Specifically, Moving To Work program PHAs held
between $432.4 million and $466.5 million for the majority of the fiscal year and even after
offsets performed in August and September 2016, held $212 million in excess of their immediate
disbursement needs. Further, PHAs accumulated $168.3 million from January to June 2016 and
most likely accumulated additional excess funds from July through September, none of which
had been offset as of September 30, 2016. These conditions occurred because HUD lacked an
automated system and real-time expense data needed to fully implement its cash management
policies. Since PHAs maintained these funds in excess of immediate disbursement needs for
extended periods and were unable to quickly offset the funds against future disbursements, HUD
15
Compliance with section 803(a) elements of FFMIA include (1) system requirements, (2) accounting standards,
and (3) USSGL at the transaction level.
16
Before fiscal year 2013, HUD provided housing assistance payments to its PHAs that far exceeded their need and
did not have a process in place to offset excess funding. To address this problem, PIH implemented the following
cash management polices: (1) determine future disbursement based on previous need, (2) perform quarterly cash
reconciliations and offset excess funding as it is identified, and (3) offset amounts that accumulated before the
implementation of these new processes.
23
did not comply with Treasurys cash management regulations 17 or 2 CFR (Code of Federal
Regulations) Part 200, 18 increasing the risk of funds being susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse.
HUD Did Not Comply With the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010
Our Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) audit 19 found that HUD did not
comply with IPERA in fiscal year 2015 because it did not conduct its annual risk assessment in
accordance with OMB guidance or meet its annual improper payment reduction target.
Specifically, HUD did not assess all low-risk programs on a 3-year cycle or consider all nine
required risk factors, making the review incomplete and noncompliant with section 3(a)(3)(B) of
IPERA. HUD also failed to meet or exceed the annual improper payment reduction targets for
its high-priority program, Rental Housing Assistance Programs (RHAP), causing noncompliance
with section 3(a)(3)(E) of IPERA. This is the third year in a row that HUD did not comply with
IPERA. Additionally, we found that information published in the AFR did not meet the
reporting requirements of OMB Circular A-136, significant improper payments in HUDs RHAP
continued, and HUDs improper payment estimate and methodology for RHAP continued to
have deficiencies during fiscal year 2015.
Ginnie Mae Did Not Comply With the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996
In fiscal year 2016, Ginnie Maes noncompliance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act
(DCIA) of 1996 continued. Specifically, as reported in fiscal year 2015, Ginnie Mae had not
remediated its practice of ensuring that all debt collection tools allowed by law had been
considered before deciding to discharge certain uninsured mortgage debts owed to Ginnie Mae.
This condition occurred because Ginnie Maes management continued to take the position that
DCIA did not apply to Ginnie Mae; therefore, it did not need to comply with DCIA
requirements. As a result, Ginnie Mae may have missed opportunities to collect tens of millions
of dollars in debts related to losses on its mortgage-backed securities program.
17
Treasury Financial Manual, Vol. 1, Part 4A, Section 2045.10, Cash Advances Establishing Procedure for Cash
Advances, section 3, states, It is the responsibility of grantor agencies to monitor the cash management practices of
their recipient organizations to ensure that Federal cash is not maintained by them in excess of immediate disbursing
needs. Agencies must establish systems and procedures to assure that balances are maintained commensurate with
immediate disbursing needs, excess balances are promptly returned to the Treasury; and advance funding
arrangements with recipient organizations unwilling or unable to comply are terminated.
18
Regulations at 2 CFR 200.305 state, For non-Federal entities other than States, payments methods must minimize
the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the
disbursement by the non-Federal entity. The regulations further state, Advance payments to a non-Federal entity
must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed to be in accordance with the actual, immediate cash
requirements of the non-Federal entity in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project.
19
Audit Report 2016-FO-0005, Compliance With the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act, issued
May 13, 2016
20
Audit Report 2017-FO-0002, Audit of Federal Housing Administration Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated)
Financial Statements Audit, issued November 14, 2016, was incorporated into this report.
24
financial statements, along with discussion of two material weaknesses and three significant
deficiencies in internal controls.
We also tested HUDs compliance with laws, regulations, governmentwide policies, and
provisions of contract and grant agreements that could have a direct and material effect on the
financial statements. However, our consideration of HUDs internal controls and our testing of
its compliance with laws, regulations, governmentwide policies, and provisions of contract and
grant agreements were not designed to and did not provide sufficient evidence to allow us to
express an opinion on such matters and would not necessarily disclose all matters that might be
material weaknesses; significant deficiencies; or noncompliance with laws, regulations,
governmentwide policies, and provisions of contract and grant agreements. Accordingly, we do
not express an opinion on HUDs internal controls or its compliance with laws, regulations,
governmentwide policies, and provisions of contract and grant agreements.
Our review of the reissued fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements entailed
reviewing the revised consolidated financial statements to (1) validate that appropriate revisions
were made to the financial statements and notes to correct all errors that were identified and (2)
confirm that the financial statements and notes are presented in conformity with OMB Circular
A-136 and United States GAAP.
21
Audit Report 2017-FO-0001, Audit of the Government National Mortgage Associations Fiscal Years 2016 and
2015 (Restated) Financial Statements, issued November 14, 2016, was incorporated into this report.
25
Because of the matters described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion section above, we were
not able to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.
In regard to the FSSP implementation, HUD states, The successful transition puts HUD in a
place to make significant strides toward strong financial management and data-driven decisions.
However, we reported that the implementation failed to meet expectations. The audit report 22
stated, A year after the transition, HUD had inaccurate data resulting from the conversions and
continued to execute 97 percent of programmatic transactions in its legacy applications. In
addition, HUD did not decommission all of the applications it wanted to, including its core
financial system, nor did it achieve the planned cost savings. Further, the lack of planning for
this transition compromised HUDs financial reporting and made it unable to provide financial
statements in time for audit, and the statements it did provide contained pervasive material
errors. Instead of being a successful transition and making significant strides toward strong
financial management as stated in the comments, the new financial reporting process is more
complex, which makes it increasingly more difficult to incorporate late financial reporting
changes from its component entities.
HUD states that the presentation of the financial information was inaccurate and describes the
errors in its financial statements and notes as inconsistencies. Since the financial information
reported was not correct, these statements are misleading because they imply that the information
reported was correct but was merely presented inconsistently. Further, HUD states, Overall, the
combined adjustments to the consolidated financial statements resulted in a net adjustment of $3
million, but no changes in HUDs financial position or impact to our programs. HUD
management is downplaying the severity of the condition and impact of the errors identified,
which were significant enough to cause it to recall its published AFR and reissue its fiscal year
2016 consolidated financial statements and notes. While the errors identified may not have
changed HUDs financial position, as HUD states at the bottom of its financial statements, The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements. These notes contained errors of
$516.4 billion.
While we have audited HUDs reissued statements, we have not fully evaluated any of the new
process improvements HUD discussed in its response. We look forward to evaluating these
processes as part of our fiscal year 2017 audit.
22
Audit report 2017-DP-0001, New Core Project: Shared Service Implementation Failed To Meet Expectations,
issued February 1, 2017
26
Results of Audit
Before the issuance of HUDs 2016 and 2015 (restated) consolidated financial statements, we
reviewed what was submitted to us for audit and noted pervasive material errors in the financial
statements and accompanying notes totaling $557 million and $278.5 billion, respectively. 24 We
also identified differences of $19.5 billion in amounts presented in three note disclosures
between what was submitted to us for audit and what was published in HUDs AFR. We found
that the errors in the statements and notes and discrepancies between what was provided for audit
and what was published occurred due to extensive weaknesses in HUDs internal controls over
financial reporting. As a result, HUD withdrew its AFR to correct the material errors and notify
users that the fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements could not be relied
upon.
Subsequent Review of HUDs Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) Consolidated
Financial Statements
Our subsequent review of HUDs fiscal years 2016 and 2015 (restated) consolidated financial
statements found an extensive number of material errors. Specifically, we found errors in (1)
HUDs notes to the financial statements and (2) the statement of budgetary resources. We also
identified discrepancies between the final financial statements submitted to us for review and the
financial statements presented and published in HUDs AFR.
23
This updates the material weakness, Weak Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting Led to Errors and Delays in
the Preparation of Financial Statements and Notes, reported in OIG audit report 2017-FO-0003. All other material
weaknesses and significant deficiencies found during this audit are contained in OIG audit report 2017-FO-0003.
See the Background and Objectives section for more information.
24
HUDs fiscal years 2016 and 2015 (restated) consolidated financial statements were not provided in time for
audit. Refer to the Background and Objectives section and the Emphasis of Matter paragraph in our independent
auditors report.
28
while OMB Circular A-136 requires the highest level of rounding to be at the nearest
million. This practice caused amounts to not agree with supporting files or underlying
Ginnie Mae and FHA information. Some of the errors identified flowed through to other
note line items or note columns and caused errors in the totals presented. The absolute
value of these additional errors was not included in our total.
We communicated these errors to HUD management in early December 2016 and advised it to
review its fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements to determine whether it
agreed that they contained material misstatements and would need to be revised and reissued.
Specifically, we noted weaknesses in each element of internal controls: (1) control environment,
(2) risk assessment, (3) control activities, (4) information and communication, and (5)
monitoring.
29
Information and communication: HUD OCFO management did not fully understand
how the FHA and Ginnie Mae restatements would impact the notes. Information was not
clearly communicated internally within OCFO or between HUD and its component
entities (FHA and Ginnie Mae) to explain the full impact of restatements or changes that
occurred in the presentation of the statements from the prior year to the current year. As
a result, information was incorporated into HUDs final financial statements incorrectly.
Control activities and monitoring: HUDs financial reporting process did not provide
enough time for a thorough review by staff that had adequate experience preparing and
reviewing HUDs financial statements and notes. Late in the fiscal year, HUD
management decided to allocate additional resources to the financial reporting process
and assigned contractors to work on key elements of the financial statements and notes.
However, the contractors were not familiar with HUDs financial information or its
financial reporting process and did not have access to necessary financial systems. Due
to this fundamental lack of understanding, the contractors transferred information from
the supporting files to the notes incorrectly, which went undetected by HUD management
due to inadequate monitoring and review of the process.
Control activities, risk assessment, and monitoring: The consolidation of FHA and
Ginnie Mae information into HUDs consolidated financial statements is inherently risky
because it involves several complex manual steps. Yet there were no controls in place to
mitigate this risk. As a result, information was incorporated into HUDs final financial
statements incorrectly, which went undetected by HUD management.
Risk assessment and control activities: The addition of an FSSP greatly complicated
HUDs already complex reporting process. HUD decided not to test the new process
until the third quarter, allowing errors or problems with the new process to go
unidentified for more than 9 months of the fiscal year before attempting to address them.
This delay did not allow sufficient time to resolve problems and errors identified for
yearend reporting.
Control environment, control activities, and information and communication: HUD
OCFO management appeared not to understand the note preparation process or the level
of expertise and training required to prepare and review HUDs notes due to a lack of
policies and procedures.
As a result of these serious internal control weaknesses, HUD published final consolidated
financial statements in its AFR that contained pervasive material errors. Therefore, users of
HUDs financial statements could not rely upon them, and HUD had to recall its fiscal year 2016
AFR.
HUD management revised its fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements to (1)
correct the errors that we identified, (2) correct other balances that were impacted by the errors,
and (3) correct other errors identified by OCFO during its review. The revised statements were
provided to us for audit, and we audited them in their entirety to determine whether they were
consolidated and presented in accordance with OMB Circular A-136 and GAAP. We found that
all of the errors we identified had been corrected. We also noted additional changes made by
OCFO and determined that they were properly supported.
30
Conclusion
We identified material, pervasive errors in HUDs fiscal years 2016 and 2015 (restated)
consolidated financial statements published in its AFR and communicated those errors to HUD
management. HUD concurred and withdrew and reissued its consolidated financial statements to
address the errors we identified and other needed corrections. These errors occurred because of
pervasive weaknesses in OCFOs internal controls over financial reporting, primarily attributed
to the transition of its general ledger system to an FSSP without adequate requirements for
gathering and testing of the financial reporting process. Our analysis of the fiscal years 2016 and
2015 consolidated financial statements determined that this failure resulted in (1) more than
$278.5 billion in misstatements in the notes to the financial statements, (2) a $557 million error
in HUDs statement of budgetary resources, and (3) $19.5 billion in line item amounts presented
in HUDs AFR that differed from those that were presented for audit. Most importantly, HUD
had to recall its fiscal year 2016 AFR because of the material misstatements contained in the
consolidated financial statements and state that the published report should not be relied on.
HUD was able to make revisions to correct the errors identified and make other corrections that
were later identified by OCFO. OCFO reissued its financial statements, which included
corrections totaling $516.4 billion to its notes and $3.4 billion to its financial statements. We
reissued our audit opinion in our independent auditors report upon completion of our audit of
HUDs reissued fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements. While HUD had
corrected the material errors and reissued its statements, our opinion remained unchanged from a
disclaimer of opinion due to other material matters identified during the previous audit of HUDs
fiscal years 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements, which are further discussed in our
independent auditors report and OIG audit report 2017-FO-0003.
25
Recommendations
We recommend that the Acting Chief Financial Officer
1A. Evaluate the current content of HUDs financial statement note disclosures to
identify outdated or irrelevant information that may not be needed, while
maintaining compliance with OMB Circular A-136 and presenting the reader with
the information necessary to understand HUDs financial statements.
1B. Work with FHA and Ginnie Mae to reevaluate the note consolidation process to
determine changes that can be made to the process to ensure compliance with
financial reporting requirements.
1C. Reassess HUDs current consolidated financial statement and notes review process
to ensure that (1) all reviewers have sufficient financial reporting experience; (2) it
includes steps to verify that the notes match HUDs financial statements, are
sufficiently supported, and accurately include FHA and Ginnie Mae information; and
25
The recommendations listed here are in addition to recommendations made in OIG Audit Report 2017-FO-0003,
Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Financial Statement Audit.
31
(3) the review can be completed within the required timeframe needed to allow for
audit.
32
Appendixes
Appendix A
33
34
Appendix B
35
Appendix C
HUDs Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements and
Notes
36
Financial Statements
Financial Statements
Introduction
The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results
of operations of HUD, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515(b). While the statements
have been prepared from HUDs books and records in accordance with GAAP for Federal
entities and the formats prescribed by OMB, the statements are in addition to the financial
reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources, which are prepared from the same
books and records. The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a
component of the U.S. Government, a sovereign entity.
The following financial statements are presented:
The Consolidated Balance Sheet, as of September 30, 2016, and 2015, which presents those
resources owned or managed by HUD that are available to provide future economic benefits
(assets), amounts owed by HUD that will require payments from those resources or future
resources (liabilities), and residual amounts retained by HUD comprising the difference (net
position).
The Consolidated Statement of Net Cost, which presents the net cost of HUD operations for
the years ended September 30, 2016, and 2015. HUDs net cost of operations includes the gross
costs incurred by HUD less any exchange revenue earned from HUD activities.
The Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position, which presents the change in HUDs
net position resulting from the net cost of HUD operations, budgetary financing sources other
than exchange revenues, and other financing sources for the years ended September 30, 2016,
and 2015.
The Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources, which presents the budgetary resources
available to HUD during FY 2016 and 2015, the status of these resources at September 30, 2016,
and 2015, and the outlay of budgetary resources for the years ended September 30, 2016,
and 2015.
The Notes to the Financial Statements provide important disclosures and details related to
information reported on the statements.
37
Financial Statements
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development
Consolidated Balance Sheet
For the Periods Ending September 2016 and September 2015
(Dollars in Millions)
Assets:
Intragovernmental:
Fund balance with Treasury (Note 4) $ 73,198 $ 94,691
Short-Term Investments (Note 6) 15,954 12,923
Long-Term Investments held to matuirty (Note 6) 36,398 14,754
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 7) 1 -
Other Assets (Note 12) 43 9
Total Intragovernmental Assets $ 125,594 $ 122,377
Cash (Note 5) $ 60 $ 45
Investments (Note 6) 31 31
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 7) 611 780
Direct Loan and Loan Guarantees, Net (Note 8) 19,476 14,965
Other Non-Credit Reform Loans (Note 9) 2,680 3,227
General Property, Plant, and Equipment (Note 10) 381 329
PIH Prepayments (Note 11) 380 672
Other Assets (Note 12) 53 45
Total Assets $ 149,266 $ 142,471
Liabilities:
Intragovernmental
Accounts payable (Note 13) $ 24 $ 16
Debt (Note 14) 31,002 27,150
Other Intragovernmental Liabilities (Note 17) 3,024 3,148
Total Intragovernmental Liabilities $ 34,050 $ 30,314
Net Position:
Unexpended appropriations - earmarked funds (Note 20) $ (342) $ (305)
Unexpended appropriations - other funds 47,257 51,420
Cumulative results of operations - earmarked funds (Note 20) 22,655 21,417
Cumulative results of operations - other funds 42,592 21,482
Total Net Position $ 112,162 $ 94,014
Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 149,266 $ 142,471
38
Financial Statements
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development
Consolidated Statement Of Net Cost
For the Periods Ending September 2016 and September 2015
(Dollars in Millions)
2016 2015 (Restated)
COSTS
Federal Housing Administration
Gross Costs (Note 21) $ (17,758) $ (16,203)
Less: Earned Revenues (1,218) (1,849)
Net Program Costs (18,976) (18,052)
(Gain)/Loss on pension, ORB or OPEB Assumption Changes - -
Net program costs including Assumption Changes (18,976) (18,052)
HOME
Gross Costs (Note 21) $ 1,167 $ 1,241
Less: Earned Revenues - -
Net Program Costs 1,167 1,241
(Gain)/Loss on pension, ORB or OPEB Assumption Changes - -
Net program costs including Assumption Changes 1,167 1,241
Other
Gross Costs (Note 21) $ 6,351 $ 6,071
Less: Earned Revenues (37) (29)
Net Program Costs 6,314 6,042
(Gain)/Loss on pension, ORB or OPEB Assumption Changes - -
Net program costs including Assumption Changes 6,314 6,042
Consolidated
Gross Costs (Note 21) $ 33,319 $ 33,908
Less: Earned Revenues (3,005) (3,573)
Net Cost of Operations $ 30,314 $ 30,335
39
Financial Statements
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development
Consolidated Statement Of Changes In Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 2016 and September 2015
(Dollars in Millions)
UNEXPENDED APPROPRIATIONS:
Beginning of Period $ (320) $ 51,435 $ 51,115 $ (221) $ 56,442 $ 56,221
Adjustments: - - - - - -
Changes in Accounting Principles - - - - - -
Corrections and Errors 14 (15) (1) - 574 574
Beginning Balance, As Adjusted $ (306) $ 51,420 $ 51,114 $ (221) $ 57,016 $ 56,795
40
Financial Statements
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development
Combined Statement Of Budgetary Resources
For The Periods Ending September 2016 and September 2015
(Dollars in Millions)
Uncollected Payments:
Uncollected Payments, Fed Sources, Brought Forward, Oct 1 $ (18) $ (56) $ (12) $ (57)
Adjustment to Uncollected Payments, Fed Sources, Start of Year - - - -
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments, Fed Sources (23) 5 (6) 1
Actual Transfers, Uncollected Payments, Fed sources - - - -
Uncollected Payments, Fed sources, End of Year $ (41) $ (51) $ (18) $ (56)
41
Notes to Financial Statements
42
Notes to Financial Statements
The Section 202/811 Supportive Housing for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities programs
provided 40-year loans to nonprofit organizations sponsoring rental housing for the elderly or
disabled. During FY 1992, the program was converted to a grant program. The grant program
provides capital for long-term supportive housing for the elderly (Section 202) and the disabled
(Section 811).
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs provide funds for metropolitan
cities, urban counties, and other communities to use for neighborhood revitalization, economic
development, and improved community facilities and services. The United States Congress
appropriated funds of $17,500 million between FY 2005 through FY 2012 and $150 million in
emergency supplemental appropriations in FY 2005 for the Community Development Fund for
emergency expenses to respond to various disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma and
Ike. Funds of $3,011 million were disbursed as of September 30, 2016. Any remaining
unobligated balances remain available until expended.
The Home Investments Partnerships program provides grants to states, local governments, and
Indian tribes to implement local housing strategies designed to increase home ownership and
affordable housing opportunities for low- and very low-income families.
Other Programs not included above consist of other smaller programs which provide grant,
subsidy funding, and direct loans to support other HUD objectives such as fair housing and equal
opportunity, energy conservation, rehabilitation of housing units, removal of lead hazards, and
for maintenance costs of PHAs and TDHEs housing projects. The programs provided 13 percent
of HUDs consolidated revenues and financing sources as of September 30, 2016.
43
Notes to Financial Statements
maintains the responsibility for reporting while the child performs on behalf of the parent and
controls how the funds are expended. Consequently, these balances are not included in HUDs
consolidated financial statements as specified by OMB Circular A-136.
B. Basis of Accounting
The Departments FY 2016 financial statements include the accounts and transactions of FHA,
Ginnie Mae, and its grant, subsidy and loan programs.
The financial statements are presented in accordance with the OMB Circular No. A-136,
Financial Reporting Requirements, and in conformance with the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Boards (FASAB) Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS).
The financial statements are presented on the accrual and budgetary bases of accounting. Under
the accrual method, HUD recognizes revenues when earned, and expenses when a liability is
incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of cash. Generally, procedures for HUDs major
grant and subsidy programs require recipients to request periodic disbursement concurrent with
incurring eligible costs. Budgetary accounting facilitates compliance with legal requirements on
the use of Federal funds.
The Departments disbursement policy permits grantees/recipients to request funds to meet
immediate cash needs to reimburse themselves for eligible incurred expenses and eligible
expenses expected to be received and paid within three days or as subsidies payable in
accordance with the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990. Except for PIH programs,
HUDs disbursement of funds for these purposes are not considered advance payments but are
viewed as sound cash management between the Department and the grantees. In the event it is
determined that the grantee/recipient did not disburse the funds within the three-day time frame,
interest earned must be returned to HUD and deposited into one of Treasurys miscellaneous
receipt accounts.
C. Use of Estimates
The preparation of the principal financial statements in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and
expenses during the reporting period. Actual results may differ from those estimates.
Amounts reported for net loans receivable and related foreclosed property and the loan guarantee
liability represent the Departments best estimates based on pertinent information available.
To estimate the Allowance for Subsidy (AFS) associated with loans receivable and related
foreclosed property and the Liability for Loan Guarantees (LLG), the Department uses cash flow
model assumptions associated with the loan guarantees subject to the Federal Credit Reform Act
of 1990 (FCRA), as described in Note 8, to estimate the cash flows associated with future loan
44
Notes to Financial Statements
performance. To make reasonable projections of future loan performance, the Department
develops assumptions based on historical data, current and forecasted program and economic
assumptions.
Certain programs have higher risks due to increased chances of fraudulent activities perpetrated
against the Department. The Department accounts for these risks through the assumptions used
in the liabilities for loan guarantee estimates. HUD develops the assumptions based on historical
performance and management's judgments about future loan performance.
The Department relies on estimates by PIH to determine the amount of funding needs for PHAs
and Indian Housing Authorities (IHAs) under the PIH Housing Choice Voucher Program. Under
the Departments cash management program, PIH evaluates the program needs of PHAs/IHAs to
minimize excess cash balances maintained by these entities. The Department implemented a
cash management policy in calendar year 2012 over the voucher program given its significant
funding levels and the excess cash balances which PHAs/IHAs had accumulated over the years.
The cash reserves, referred to as restricted net position (RNP) are monitored by the Department
and estimated by HUD on a recurring basis. The RNP balances are the basis for PIH
prepayments recorded by the Department in its comparative financial statements for FY 2016
and FY 2015.
In response to the OIG finding, HUD implemented a grant accrual policy on September 4, 2014,
and restated its FY 2013 financial statements. The Department continues to refine its
methodologies and the underlying assumptions used by program offices to develop the estimates.
Described below are the methodologies used by our major program offices which are
Community Planning and Development (CPD), PIH and the Office of Housing.
CPD developed a statistical model for its grant programs based on recent historical data
in the Integrated Disbursement Information System (IDIS). Utilizing activity type,
funding and disbursement information in IDIS, CPD was able to extrapolate the
relationship between accrued expenses over a specified period of time and when the
services are generally billed to the government by the grantees.
PIH administrative programs use disbursement data from the Departments Electronic
Line of Credit Control Systems (ELOCCS) and evaluated it for reasonableness based on
unaudited data using the Financial Subsystem for Public Housing (FASS-PIH).
The Office of Housing, similar to the PIH administered programs, utilizes disbursement
data recorded in ELOCCS over a 12-month period and assumes a 30-day processing time
from when the entity incurs eligible expenses and the associated drawdown of funds by
the grantee occurs.
D. Credit Reform Accounting
The primary purpose of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA), which became effective
on October 1, 1991, is to more accurately measure the cost of Federal credit programs and to
45
Notes to Financial Statements
place the cost of such credit programs on a basis equivalent with other Federal spending. OMB
Circular A-11, Preparation, Execution, and Submission of the Budget, Part 5, Federal Credit
Programs defines loan guarantee as any guarantee, insurance or other pledge with respect to the
payment of all or a part of the principal or interest on any debt obligation of a non-Federal
borrower (Issuer) to a non-Federal lender (Investor). FHA practices Credit Reform accounting.
The FCRA establishes the use of the program, financing, and general fund receipt accounts for
loan guarantees committed and direct loans obligated after September 30, 1991, (Credit Reform).
It also establishes the liquidating account for activity relating to any loan guarantees committed
and direct loans obligated before October 1, 1991, (pre-Credit Reform). These accounts are
classified as either budgetary or non-budgetary in the Combined Statements of Budgetary
Resources. The budgetary accounts include the program, capital reserve and liquidating
accounts. The non-budgetary accounts consist of the credit reform financing accounts.
The program account is a budget account that receives and obligates appropriations to cover the
subsidy cost of a direct loan or loan guarantee and disburses the subsidy cost to the financing
account. The program account also receives appropriations for administrative expenses. The
financing account is a non-budgetary account that records all of the cash flows resulting from
Credit Reform direct loans or loan guarantees. It disburses loans, collects repayments and fees,
makes claim payments, holds balances, borrows from U.S. Treasury, earns or pays interest, and
receives the subsidy cost payment from the program account.
The general fund receipt account is a budget account used for the receipt of amounts paid from
the financing account when there are negative subsidies from the original estimate or a
downward re-estimate. In most cases, the receipt account is a general fund receipt account and
amounts are not earmarked for the credit program. They are available for appropriations only in
the sense that all general fund receipts are available for appropriations. Any assets in this
account are non-entity assets and are offset by intragovernmental liabilities. At the end of the
fiscal year, the fund balance in the general fund receipt account is transferred to the U.S.
Treasury General Fund. The FHA general fund receipt accounts for the General Insurance (GI)
and Special Risk Insurance (SRI) funds are in this category.
In order to resolve the different requirements between the FCRA and the National Affordable
Housing Act of 1990 (NAHA), OMB instructed FHA to create the capital reserve account to
retain the Mutual Mortgage Insurance/Cooperative Management Housing Insurance
(MMI/CMHI) negative subsidy and subsequent downward re-estimates. Specifically, the NAHA
requires that FHA maintain a 2 percent Capital Ratio in the MMI Fund. The Capital Ratio is
defined as the ratio of economic net worth (current cash plus the present value of all future net
cash flows) of the MMI fund to unamortized insurance in force (the unpaid balance of insured
mortgages). Therefore, to ensure that the calculated capital ratio reflects the actual strength of
the MMI fund, the resources of the capital reserve account, which are considered FHA assets, are
included in the calculation of the MMI funds economic net worth.
46
Notes to Financial Statements
The liquidating account is a budget account that records all cash flows to and from FHA
resulting from pre-Credit Reform direct loans or loan guarantees. Liquidating account
collections in any year are available only for obligations incurred during that year or to repay
debt. Unobligated balances remaining in the GI and SRI liquidating funds at year-end are
transferred to the U.S. Treasurys General Fund. Consequently, in the event that resources in the
GI/SRI liquidating account are otherwise insufficient to cover the payments for obligations or
commitments, the FCRA provides the GI/SRI liquidating account with permanent indefinite
authority to cover any resource shortages.
E. Operating Revenue and Financing Sources
HUD finances operations principally through appropriations, collection of premiums and fees on
its FHA and Ginnie Mae programs, and interest income on its mortgage notes, loans, and
investments portfolio.
Appropriations for Grant and Subsidy Programs
HUD receives both annual and multi-year appropriations and recognizes those appropriations as
revenue when related program expenses are incurred. Accordingly, HUD recognizes grant-
related revenue and related expenses as recipients perform under the contracts. HUD recognizes
subsidy-related revenue and related expenses when the underlying assistance (e.g., provision of a
Section 8 rental unit by a housing owner) is provided or upon disbursal of funds to PHAs.
Ginnie Mae Fees
Fees received for Ginnie Maes guaranty of MBS are recognized as earned. Commitment fees
represent income that Ginnie Mae earns for providing approved issuers with authority to pool
mortgages into Ginnie Mae MBS. The authority Ginnie Mae provides issuers expires 12 months
from issuance for single family issuers and 24 months from issuance for multifamily issuers.
Ginnie Mae receives commitment fees as issuers request commitment authority and recognizes
the commitment fees as earned as issuers use their commitment authority, with the balance
deferred until earned or expired, whichever occurs first. Fees from expired commitment
authority are not returned to issuers.
47
Notes to Financial Statements
for the financing accounts are recorded as additions to the Liability for Loan Guarantee or the
Allowance for Subsidy when collected.
G. Investments
HUD limits its investments, principally comprised of investments by FHAs MMI/CMHI Fund
and by Ginnie Mae, to non-marketable market-based Treasury interest-bearing obligations (i.e.,
investments not sold in public markets). The market value and interest rates established for such
investments are the same as those for similar Treasury issues, which are publicly marketed.
HUDs investment decisions are limited to Treasury policy which: (1) only allows investment in
Treasury notes, bills, and bonds; and (2) prohibits HUD from engaging in practices that result in
windfall gains and profits, such as security trading and full scale restructuring of portfolios in
order to take advantage of interest rate fluctuations.
FHAs normal policy is to hold investments in U.S. Government securities to maturity.
However, in certain circumstances, FHA may have to liquidate its U.S. Government securities
before maturity.
HUD reports investments in U.S. Government securities at amortized cost. Premiums or
discounts are amortized into interest income over the term of the investment. HUD intends to
hold investments to maturity, unless needed for operations. No provision is made to record
unrealized gains or losses on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to
maturity.
Multifamily Risk Sharing Debentures [Section 542(c)] is a program available to lenders where
the lender shares the risk in a property by issuing debentures for the claim amount paid by FHA
on defaulted insured loans.
H. Credit Program Receivables and Related Foreclosed Property
HUD finances mortgages and provides loans to support construction and rehabilitation of low
rent housing, principally for the elderly and disabled under the Section 202/811 program. FHAs
loans receivable includes Mortgage Notes Assigned (MNAs), also described as Secretary-held
notes, Purchase Money Mortgages (PMM) and notes related to partial claims. Under the
requirements of the FCRA, PMM notes are considered to be direct loans while MNA notes are
considered to be defaulted guaranteed loans. The PMM loans are generated from the sales on
credit of FHAs foreclosed properties to qualified non-profit organizations. The MNA notes are
created when FHA pays the lenders for claims on defaulted guaranteed loans and takes
assignment of the defaulted loans for direct collections. In addition, multifamily mortgages are
assigned to FHA when lenders file mortgage insurance claims for defaulted notes.
Credit program receivables for direct loan programs and defaulted guaranteed loans assigned for
direct collection are valued differently based on the direct loan obligation or loan guarantee
commitment date. These valuations are in accordance with the FCRA and SFFAS No. 2,
48
Notes to Financial Statements
Accounting for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees, as amended by SFFAS No. 18. Those
obligated or committed on or after October 1, 1991, (post-Credit Reform) are valued at the net
present value of expected cash flows from the related receivables.
Credit program receivables resulting from obligations or commitments prior to October 1, 1991,
(pre-Credit Reform) are recorded at the lower of cost or fair value (net realizable value). Fair
value is estimated based on the prevailing market interest rates at the date of mortgage
assignment. When fair value is less than cost, discounts are recorded and amortized to interest
income over the remaining terms of the mortgages or upon sale of the mortgages. Interest is
recognized as income when earned. However, when full collection of principal is considered
doubtful, the accrual of interest income is suspended and receipts (both interest and principal) are
recorded as collections of principal. Pre-Credit Reform loans are reported net of allowance for
loss and any unamortized discount. The estimate for the allowance on credit program
receivables is based on historical loss rates and recovery rates resulting from asset sales and
property recovery rates, and net of cost of sales.
Foreclosed property acquired as a result of defaults of loans obligated or loan guarantees
committed on or after October 1, 1991, is valued at the net present value of the projected cash
flows associated with the property. Foreclosed property acquired as a result in defaulted loans
obligated or loan guarantees committed prior to 1992 is valued at net realizable value. The
estimate for the allowance for loss related to the net realizable value of foreclosed property is
based on historical loss rates and recovery rates resulting from property sales, and net of cost of
sales.
I. Borrowings
As further discussed in Note 14, several of HUDs programs have the authority to borrow funds
from the U.S. Treasury for program operations. These borrowings, representing unpaid principal
balances and future accrued interest, are reported as debt in HUDs consolidated financial
statements. The PIH Low Rent Public Housing Loan Program and the Housing for the Elderly
or Handicapped fund were financed through borrowings from the Federal Financing Bank or the
U.S. Treasury prior to the Departments conversion of these programs to grant programs. The
Department also borrowed funds from the private sector to assist in the construction and
rehabilitation of low rent housing projects under the PIH Low Rent Public Housing Loan
Program. Repayments of these long-term borrowings have terms up to 40 years.
In accordance with Credit Reform accounting, FHA also borrows from the U.S. Treasury when
cash is needed in its financing accounts. Usually, the need for cash arises when FHA has to
transfer the negative credit subsidy amount related to new loan disbursements, and existing loan
modifications from the financing accounts to the general fund receipts account (for cases in
GI/SRI funds) or the capital reserve account (for cases in MMI/CMHI funds). In some instances,
borrowings are also needed to transfer the credit subsidy related to downward re-estimates from
49
Notes to Financial Statements
the GI/SRI financing account to the GI/SRI receipt account or when available cash is less than
claim payments due.
50
Notes to Financial Statements
M. Retirement Plans
The majority of HUDs employees participate in either the Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). FERS went into effect pursuant
to Public Law 99-335 on January 1, 1987. Most employees hired after December 31, 1983, are
automatically covered by FERS and Social Security. Employees hired before January 1, 1984,
can elect to either join FERS and Social Security or remain in CSRS. HUD expenses its
contributions to the retirement plans.
A primary feature of FERS is that it offers a savings plan whereby HUD automatically
contributes one percent of pay and matches any employee contribution up to five percent of an
individuals basic pay. Under CSRS, employees can contribute up to $18,000 of their pay to the
savings plan, but there is no corresponding matching by HUD. Although HUD funds a portion
of the benefits under FERS relating to its employees and makes the necessary withholdings from
them, it has no liability for future payments to employees under these plans, nor does it report
CSRS or FERS assets, accumulated plan benefits, or unfunded liabilities applicable to its
employees retirement plans.
N. Fiduciary Funds
Ginnie Mae has immaterial fiduciary activities which involve the collection or receipt and
subsequent disposition of cash in which non-Federal entities have an ownership interest.
Fiduciary assets are not assets of Ginnie Mae or the Federal Government. The fiduciary assets
held by Ginnie Mae include unclaimed MBS Certificate Holders payments and escrow funds
held in trust. The amount of escrows reported by Ginnie Mae for FY 2016 and FY 2015 were
$49 million and $103 million, respectively.
51
Notes to Financial Statements
IHBG recipients must meet certain criteria to be eligible to invest IHBG funds. Total invested
IHBG funds were approximately $260 million as of September 30, 2016, and $273 million as of
September 30, 2015.
The Departments Fund Balance with Treasury includes receipt accounts established under
current Federal Credit Reform legislation and cash collections deposited in restricted accounts
52
Notes to Financial Statements
that cannot be used by HUD for its programmatic needs. These designated funds established by
the Department of Treasury are classified as suspense and/or deposit funds and consist of
accounts receivable balances due from the public. A Statement of Budgetary Resources is not
prepared for these funds since any cash remittances received by the Department are not defined
as a budgetary resource.
In addition to fund balance, contract and investment authority are also a part of HUDs funding
sources. Contract authority permits an agency to incur obligations in advance of an
appropriation, offsetting collections, or receipts to make outlays to liquidate the obligations.
HUD has permanent indefinite contract authority. Since Federal securities are considered the
equivalent of cash for budget purposes, investments in them are treated as a change in the mix of
assets held, rather than as a purchase of assets.
HUDs fund balances with the U.S. Treasury as reflected in the entitys general ledger as of
September 30, 2016 and 2015, were as follows (dollars in millions):
53
Notes to Financial Statements
S tatus of Resources - 2016
54
Notes to Financial Statements
S tatus of Resources - 2015
55
Notes to Financial Statements
An immaterial difference exists between HUDs recorded Fund Balances with the U.S. Treasury
and the U.S. Department of Treasurys records. It is the Departments practice to adjust its
records to agree with Treasurys balances at the end of the fiscal year. The adjustments are
reversed at the beginning of the following fiscal year.
As the result of one our new internal controls, HUD initiated a project which quickly identified
weaknesses in the validation of the general ledger and sub-ledger balances. Although a number
of historical items have been resolved, efforts were still underway on September 30, 2016, to
research, analyze, and resolve the remaining historical items. HUD has assessed the available
information for the remaining items and determined there are no supportable financial statement
impacts to record.
Note 6: Investments
The U.S. Government short-term securities are non-marketable intra-governmental securities.
These are U.S. Treasury securities issued with a maturity date of three months or less consisting
primarily of one-day overnight certificates that are issued with a stated rate of interest to be
applied to their par amount with a maturity date on the next business day. These overnight
certificates are measured at amortized cost which approximates fair value. Interest rates
established by the U.S. Treasury as of September 30, 2016, were 0.11 percent. During FY 2015,
interest rate was 0.00 percent. The amortized cost and estimated market value of investments in
debt securities as of September 30, 2016 and 2015, were as follows (dollars in millions):
Short-Term Cost Amortized Accrued Net Market
56
Notes to Financial Statements
2016
601 Program $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Risk Sharing Debentures 31 - - - - 31
Total $ 31 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31
2015
601 Program $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Risk Sharing Debentures 41 19 - - (29) 31
Total $ 41 $ 19 $ - $ - $ (29) $ 31
57
Notes to Financial Statements
program funding from a unit-based process with program variables that affected the total
annual Federal funding need, to a budget-based process that limits the Federal funding to
PHAs to a fixed amount. Under this budget-based process, a year-end settlement process to
determine actual amounts due is no longer applicable. Effective January 1, 2012, PIH reinstated
the year-end settlement process for the HCV Program in accordance with its cash management
policies. However, as reported by the OIGs Internal Control Report, the results of PIHs cash
reconciliation reviews are not reflected in the Departments financial statements. The PIH
reviews have not been completed on a timely basis and the required standard general ledger
transactions have not been recorded in the Departments accounting systems.
Bond Refunding
Many of the Section 8 projects constructed in the late 1970s and early 1980s were financed with
tax exempt bonds with maturities ranging from 20 to 40 years. The related Section 8 contracts
provided that the subsidies would be based on the difference between what tenants could pay
pursuant to a formula and the total operating costs of the Section 8 project, including debt
service. The high interest rates during the construction period resulted in high subsidies. When
interest rates came down in the 1980s, HUD was interested in getting the bonds refunded. One
method used to account for the savings when bonds are refunded (PHAs sell a new series of
bonds at a lower interest rate, to liquidate the original bonds), is to continue to pay the original
amount of the bond debt service to a trustee. The amounts paid in excess of the lower
refunded debt service and any related financing costs, are considered savings. One-half of
these savings are provided to the PHA, the remaining one-half is returned to HUD. As of
September 30, 2016 and 2015, HUD was due $10 million and $13 million, respectively.
Section 236 Excess Rental Income
The Excess Rental Income receivable account represents the difference between the amounts that
projects reported to HUDs lockbox as owing (in use prior to August 2008) and the actual
amount collected. On a monthly basis, projects financed under Section 236 of the National
Housing Act must report the amount of rent collected in excess of basic rents and remit those
funds to the Department. Unless written authorization is given by the Department to retain the
excess rental income, the difference must be remitted to HUD. Generally, the individual
amounts owing under Excess Rental Income receivables represent monthly reports remitted
without payment. After 2008, any remittances owed by individuals are collected through
PAY.GOV as well as the required HUD documents.
Other Receivables
Sustained audit costs include sustained audit findings, refunds of overpayment, and FHA partial
claims, settlements receivable and foreclosed property proceeds due from the public.
58
Notes to Financial Statements
The following shows accounts receivable as reflected in the Balance Sheet as of
September 30, 2016 and 2015 (dollars in millions):
2016 2015
Gross Gross
Accounts Allowance Accounts Allowance
Description Receivable for Loss Total, Net Receivable for Loss Total, Net
Intragovernmental $ 1 $ - $ 1 $ - $ - $ -
Public
Sustained Audit Costs $ 146 $ - $ 146 $ 158 $ - $ 158
Bond Refundings 10 - 10 13 - 13
Section 8 Settlements 6 - 6 4 - 4
Section 236 Excess Rental Income 5 (1) 4 5 (1) 4
Other Receivables: -
FHA 531 (288) 243 649 (241) 408
Ginnie Mae 294 (189) 105 453 (322) 131
Other Receivables 99 (2) 97 64 (2) 62
Total Accounts Receivable $ 1,092 $ (480) $ 612 $ 1,346 $ (566) $ 780
59
Notes to Financial Statements
The allowance for loan losses for the Flexible Subsidy Fund and the Housing for the Elderly and
Disabled Program is determined as follows:
60
Notes to Financial Statements
f) HECM Loan Guarantee Program
2. Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
3. All Other
a) CPD Revolving Fund
b) Flexible Subsidy Fund
c) Section 108 Loan Guarantees
d) Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
e) Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund
f) Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
g) Title VI Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
h) Green Retrofit Direct Loan Program
i) Emergency Homeowners Loan Program
B. Direct Loans Obligated Pre-1992 (Allowance for Loss Method)
(dollars in millions):
2016
Value of
Loans Assets Related
Receivable, Interest Allowance for Foreclosed to Direct
Direct Loan Programs Gross Receivable Loan Losses Property Loans, Net
FHA
a) MMI/CHMI Direct Loan Program $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
b) GI/SRI Direct Loan Program 8 13 (4) - 17
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled 1,167 14 (10) - 1,171
All Other -
a) CPD Revolving Fund 5 - (5) 1 1
b) Flexible Subsidy Fund 405 57 (45) - 417
Total $ 1,585 $ 84 $ (64) $ 1 $ 1,606
2015
Value of
Loans Assets Related
Receivable, Interest Allowance for Foreclosed to Direct
Direct Loan Programs Gross Receivable Loan Losses Property Loans, Net
FHA
a) MMI/CHMI Direct Loan Program $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
b) GI/SRI Direct Loan Program 14 12 (6) - 20
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled 1,412 15 (11) - 1,416
All Other -
a) CPD Revolving Fund 5 - (5) 2 2
b) Flexible Subsidy Fund 428 72 (39) - 461
Total $ 1,859 $ 99 $ (61) $ 2 $ 1,899
61
Notes to Financial Statements
FHA
a) MMI/CHMI Direct Loan Program $ - $ - $ (3) $ - $ (3)
b) GI/SRI Direct Loan Program 554 1 27 - 582
All Other
a) Green Retrofit Program $ 57 $ 1 $ (53) $ - $ 5
b) Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program 34 - $ (35) - (1)
c) EHLP Receipt Account 104 - - - 104
Total $ 749 $ 2 $ (64) $ - $ 687
2015
Value of
Loans Assets
Receivable, Interest Allowance for Foreclosed Related to
Direct Loan Programs Gross Receivable Loan Losses Property Direct Loans
FHA
a) MMI/CHMI Direct Loan Program $ - $ - $ (3) $ - $ (3)
b) GI/SRI Direct Loan Program 103 - 34 - 137
All Other
a) Green Retrofit Program $ 63 $ 1 $ (66) $ - $ (2)
b) Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program 50 - (50) - -
c) EHLP Receipt Account 133 - - - 133
Total $ 349 $ 1 $ (85) $ - $ 265
62
Notes to Financial Statements
2015
Interest Fees and Other
Direct Loan Programs Differential Defaults Collections Other Total
2015
Total Interest Rate Technical Total
Direct Loan Programs Modification Re-estimates Re-estimates Re-estimates
63
Notes to Financial Statements
2016
Interest Fees and Other
Direct Loan Programs Differential Defaults Collections Other Total
2015
Interest Fees and Other
Direct Loan Programs Differential Defaults Collections Other Total
64
Notes to Financial Statements
2015
Defaulted Value of Assets
Guaranteed Related to
Loans Foreclosed Defaulted
Receivable, Interest Allowance for Loan Property, Guaranteed Loans
Gross Receivable and Interest Losses Net Receivable, Net
FHA
MMI/CMHI
a) Single Family $ 22 $ - $ (7) $ 7 $ 22
b) Multi Family - - - - -
c) HECM - - - - -
GI/SRI
a) Single Family $ - $ - $ (4) $ 9 $ 5
b) Multi Family 1,946 234 (808) 1 1,373
c) HECM 4 2 (5) (2) (1)
Total $ 1,972 $ 236 $ (824) $ 15 $ 1,399
65
Notes to Financial Statements
FHA
MMI/CMHI
a) Single Family $ 10,320 $ 5 $ (7,327) $ 2,817 $ 5,815
b) Multi Family - - - - -
c) HECM 4,472 2,350 (1,580) 36 5,278
GI/SRI
a) Single Family $ 350 $ - $ (241) $ 73 $ 182
b) Multi Family 735 - (365) 1 371
c) HECM 3,595 1,830 (1,279) 132 4,278
H4H
a) Single Family $ 5 $ - $ (5) $ 1 $ 1
All Other
a) Indian Housing Loan Guarantee - - - 37 37
b) Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee - - - (1) (1)
Total $ 19,477 $ 4,185 $ (10,797) $ 3,096 $ 15,961
2015
Defaulted Value of Assets
Guaranteed Allowance for Related to
Loans Subsidy Cost Foreclosed Defaulted
Receivable, Interest (Present Property, Guaranteed Loans
Gross Receivable Value) Gross Receivable, Net
FHA
MMI/CMHI
a) Single Family $ 8,802 $ - $ (7,053) $ 3,130 $ 4,879
b) Multi Family - - - - -
c) HECM 2,182 992 (790) 10 2,394
GI/SRI
a) Single Family $ 292 $ 1 $ (233) $ 94 $ 154
b) Multi Family 655 - (272) 1 384
c) HECM 3,106 1,517 (1,172) 101 3,552
H4H
a) Single Family $ 4 $ - $ 2 $ 1 $ 7
All Other
a) Indian Housing Loan Guarantee - - - 31 31
b) Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee - - - (1) (1)
Total $ 15,041 $ 2,510 $ (9,518) $ 3,367 $ 11,400
2016 2015
Total Credit Program Receivables and Related Foreclosed Property, Net $19,476 $14,965
66
Notes to Financial Statements
FHA Programs
a) MMI/CMHI Funds $ 1,207,833 $ 1,097,974
b) GI/SRI Funds 127,737 115,318
c) H4H Progam 91 83
All Other 7,862 7,856
Total $ 1,343,523 $ 1,221,231
2015
Outstanding
Principal,
Guaranteed Loans, Amount of Outstanding
Loan Guarantee Programs Face Value Principal Guaranteed
FHA Programs
a) MMI/CMHI Funds $ 1,168,560 $ 1,065,896
b) GI/SRI Funds 123,399 112,063
c) H4H Progam 98 92
All Other 7,321 7,317
Total $ 1,299,378 $ 1,185,368
Cumulative
2015 Current Year Current Outstanding Maximun Potential
Loan Guarantee Programs Endorsements Balance Liability
67
Notes to Financial Statements
J3. New Guaranteed Loans Disbursed (dollars in millions):
2016
Outstanding Principal, Amount of Outstanding
Loan Guarantee Programs Guaranteed Loans, Face Value Principal Guaranteed
FHA Programs
a) MMI/CMHI Funds $ 221,841 $ 219,866
b) GI/SRI Funds 12,224 12,168
c) H4H Program - -
All Other 980 979
Total $ 235,045 $ 233,013
2015
Outstanding Principal, Amount of Outstanding
Loan Guarantee Programs Guaranteed Loans, Face Value Principal Guaranteed
FHA Programs
a) MMI/CMHI Funds $ 213,125 $ 211,322
b) GI/SRI Funds 11,366 11,311
c) H4H Program - -
All Other 1,008 1,008
Total $ 225,499 $ 223,641
2015
Liabilities for Losses on Liabilities for Loan
Pre-1992 Guarantees, Guarantees for Post-
Estimated Future Default 1991 Guarantees Total Liabilities For Loan
Loan Guarantee Programs Claims (Present Value) Guarantees
68
Notes to Financial Statements
FHA
a) MMI/CMHI Funds, Excluding HECM $ 221,841 $ 5,586 $ (16,461) $ 1,791 $ (9,084)
b) MMI/CMHI Funds, HECM 14,612 844 (945) - (101)
c) GI/SRI Funds 12,224 181 (661) - (480)
d) H4H Program - - - - -
All Other - 12 - - 12
Total $ 248,677 $ 6,623 $ (18,067) $ 1,791 $ (9,653)
2015
Endorsement Default Fees Other Subsidy
Loan Guarantee Programs Amount Component Component Component Amount
FHA
a) MMI/CMHI Funds, Excluding HECM $ 213,125 $ 5,685 $ (18,707) $ - $ (13,022)
b) MMI/CMHI Funds, HECM 15,890 991 (1,055) - (64)
c) GI/SRI Funds 11,366 191 (703) - (512)
d) H4H Program - - - - -
All Other - 8 - - 8
Total $ 240,381 $ 6,875 $ (20,465) $ - $ (13,590)
FHA
a) MMI/CMHI Funds $ - $ - $ (7,897) $ (7,897)
b) GI/SRI Funds - - (225) (225)
All Other - - (28) (28)
Total $ - $ - $ (8,150) $ (8,150)
2015
FHA
a) MMI/CMHI Funds $ - $ - $ (2,247) $ (2,247)
b) GI/SRI Funds - - (1,618) (1,618)
All Other - - (12) (12)
Total $ - $ - $ (3,877) $ (3,877)
69
Notes to Financial Statements
L3. Total Loan Guarantee Subsidy Expense (dollars in millions):
Loan Guarantee Programs Current Year Prior Year
FHA
a) MMI/CMHI Funds $ (17,082) $ (15,333)
b) GI/SRI Funds (704) (2,130)
c) H4H Program - -
All Other $ (17) $ (4)
Total $ (17,803) $ (17,467)
FHA Programs
MMI/CMHI
Single Family - Forward 2.3% (6.1%) (3.8%)
Single Family - HECM 5.8% (6.5%) (0.7%)
Single Family - Refinancing 10.0% (10.0%) 0.0%
Multi Family - Section 213 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
GI/SRI Funds
Apartments - NC/SC 2.4% (5.2%) (2.7%)
Apartments - NC/SC04/01/2016 1.9% (4.3%) (2.4%)
Apartments - Refinance 0.3% (5.0%) (4.7%)
Apartments Refinance - 04/01/16 0.3% (3.9%) (3.6%)
Healthcare
MM - FHA Full Insurance - Health Care 4.0% (7.4%) (3.4%)
MF- - Hospitals 3.2% (6.5%) (3.2%)
H4H Programs
Single Family - Section 257 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
All Other Programs
CDBG, Section 108(b) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Loan Guarantee Recovery 50.0% 0.0% 50.0%
Indian Housing (weighted average) 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%
Native Hawaiian Housing 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%
Title VI Indian Housing 11.5% 0.0% 11.5%
70
Notes to Financial Statements
Budget Subsidy Rates for Loan Guarantees for FY 2015 Cohorts
FHA Programs
MMI/CMHI
Single Family - Forward 2.7% (9.9%) (7.2%)
Single Family - HECM 6.2% (6.6%) (0.4%)
Single Family - Refinancing 10.1% (10.1%) 0.0%
Multi Family - Section 213 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
GI/SRI
Multifamily
Apartments 2.5% (6.2%) (3.7%)
Apartments Refinance 0.3% (5.0%) (4.7%)
Healthcare
Residential Care 3.8% (8.0%) (4.2%)
Hospitals 2.6% (7.1%) (4.5%)
H4H
Single Family - Section 257 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
All Other Programs
CDBG, Section 108(b) 2.4% 0.0% 2.4%
Loan Guarantee Recovery 50.0% 0.0% 50.0%
Indian Housing (weighted average) 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%
Native Hawaiian Housing 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%
Title VI Indian Housing 11.2% 0.0% 11.2%
71
Notes to Financial Statements
72
Notes to Financial Statements
2015
Allowance for Loan Losess Due
Ginnie Mae Reported to Payment of Probable Claims Value of Assets Related to
Description Balances by FHA Loans
Other Non-Credit Reform Loans consists of Ginnie Mae Advances Against Defaulted Mortgage-
Backed Security Pools, Mortgage Loans Held for Investment, Short Sale Claims Receivable, and
Foreclosed Property. Below is a description of each type of asset recorded by Ginnie Mae.
Mortgage Loans Held for Investment (HFI)
When a Ginnie Mae issuer defaults, Ginnie Mae is required to step into the role of the issuer and
make the timely pass-through payments to investors, and subsequently, assumes the servicing
rights and obligations of the issuers entire Ginnie Mae guaranteed, pooled loan portfolio of the
defaulted issuer. Ginnie Mae utilizes the MSSs to service these portfolios. There are currently
two MSSs for Single Family and one MSS for Manufactured Housing defaulted issuers. These
MSSs currently service 100 percent of all non-pooled loans.
In its role as servicer, Ginnie Mae assesses individual loans within its pooled portfolio to
determine whether the loan must be purchased out of the pool as required by the Ginnie Mae
MBS Guide. Ginnie Mae purchases mortgage loans out of the MBS pool when:
A. Mortgage loans are uninsured by the FHA, USDA, VA or PIH, or
B. Mortgage loans were previously insured but insurance is currently denied (collectively
with A, referred to as uninsured mortgage loans).
73
Notes to Financial Statements
Ginnie Mae has the option to purchase mortgage loans out of the MBS pool when:
C. Mortgage loans are insured but are delinquent for more than 90 and 120 days based on
management discretion for manufactured housing and single family loans, respectively.
For the years ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the majority of purchased mortgage loans were
bought out of the pool due to borrower delinquency of more than three months.
Ginnie Mae has the ability and the intent to hold these acquired loans for the foreseeable future
or until maturity. Therefore, Ginnie Mae classifies the mortgage loans as HFI. The mortgage
loans HFI are reported net of allowance for loan losses.
Ginnie Mae evaluates the collectability of all purchased loans and assesses whether there is
evidence of credit deterioration subsequent to the loans origination and if it is probable, at
acquisition, that Ginnie Mae will be unable to collect all contractually required payments
receivable. Ginnie Mae considers guarantees and insurance from FHA, USDA, VA, and PIH in
determining whether it is probable that Ginnie Mae will collect all amounts due according to the
contractual terms.
For FHA insured loans, Ginnie Mae expects to collect the full amount of the unpaid principal
balance and debenture rate interest (only for months allowed in the insuring agencys timeline),
when the insurer reimburses Ginnie Mae subsequent to filing a claim. As a result, these loans
are accounted for under ASC Subtopic 310-20, Receivables Nonrefundable Fees and Other
Costs. In accordance with ASC 310-20-30-5, these loans are recorded at the unpaid principal
balance which is the amount Ginnie Mae pays to repurchase these loans. Accordingly, Ginnie
Mae recognizes interest income on these loans on an accrual basis at the debenture rate for the
number of months allowed under the insuring agencys timeline.
Ginnie Mae performs periodic and systematic reviews of its loan portfolios to identify credit
risks and assess the overall collectability of the portfolios for the estimated uncollectible portion
of the principal balance of the loan. As a part of this assessment, Ginnie Mae incorporates the
probable recovery amount from mortgage insurance (e.g., FHA, USDA, VA, or PIH) based on
established insurance rates. Additionally, Ginnie Mae reviews the delinquency of mortgage
loans, industry benchmarks, as well as the established rates of insurance recoveries from
insurers. Ginnie Mae records an allowance for the estimated uncollectible amount. The
allowance for loss on mortgage loans HFI represents managements estimate of probable credit
losses inherent in Ginnie Maes mortgage loan portfolio. The allowance for loss on mortgage
loans HFI is netted against the balance of mortgage loans HFI.
Ginnie Mae records a charge-off as a reduction to the allowance for loan losses when losses are
confirmed through the receipt of assets in full satisfaction of a loan, such as the receipt of claims
proceeds from an insuring agency or underlying collateral upon foreclosure.
The fair value option was not elected by Ginnie Mae for any recognized loans on its balance
sheet in 2016 and 2015. The fair value option allows certain financial assets, such as acquired
74
Notes to Financial Statements
loans, to be reported at fair value (with unrealized gains and losses reported in the Statement of
Revenues and Expenses). Ginnie Mae reserves the right to elect the fair value option for newly
acquired loans in future periods. As the fair value option was not elected and Ginnie Mae has
the ability and the intent to hold these acquired loans for the foreseeable future or until maturity,
the mortgage loans were classified as loans HFI and reported at amortized cost (net of allowance
for loan losses).
Management is currently pursuing marketing activities to potentially sell loans currently
recognized on Ginnie Maes balance sheet. Once a plan of sale is developed and loans are
clearly identified for sale, Ginnie Mae will reclassify the applicable loans from HFI to HFS (held
for sale). For loans which Ginnie Mae initially classifies as held for investment and
subsequently transfers to HFS, those loans should be recognized at the lower of cost or fair value
until sold. As of the year ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, Ginnie Mae has no loans
classified as HFS.
Please note that management is currently assessing current and historic loan accounting for
potential restatement.
Mortgage loans HFI, net as of September 30, 2016 and 2015, was $3,470 million and
$4,362 million, respectively, based on probable claims paid by FHA and recognized as an
elimination in the Departments financial statements.
Advances against Defaulted Mortgage-Backed Security Pools
Advances represent loan pass-through payments made to fulfill Ginnie Maes guaranty of timely
principal and interest payments to MBS security holders. Per U.S. GAAP, Ginnie Mae is
required to report advances net of an allowance to the extent that management believes that they
will not be collected. The allowance is estimated based on historical loss experience of future
collections from the borrowers, proceeds from the sale of the property, or recoveries from third-
party insurers such as FHA, USDA, VA, and PIH.
Once Ginnie Mae purchases the loans from the pools, the associated advances are reclassified to
the appropriate asset class. The advances balance is $21 million in FY 2016 and $119 million in
FY 2015.
Properties Held for Sale, Net
Properties held for sale represent assets for which Ginnie Mae has received the title of the
underlying collateral (e.g. completely foreclosed upon and repossessed) and intends to sell the
collateral. For instances in which Ginnie Mae does not convey the property to the insuring
agency, Ginnie Mae holds the title until the property is sold. As the properties are available for
immediate sale in their current condition and are actively marketed for sale, they are to be
recorded at the fair value of the asset less the estimated cost to sell with subsequent declines in
the fair value below the initial acquired property cost basis recorded through the use of a
valuation allowance. The Properties Held for Sale balance is one of the line items for which
75
Notes to Financial Statements
Ginnie Mae Management is currently performing an assessment related to the recognition and
measurement as compared to US GAAP requirements. Currently, Ginnie Mae does not have
access to broker price opinions or other fair value data for acquired properties. A further
assessment of data availability is currently being performed. Properties Held for Sale, net, as of
September 30, 2016 and 2015, was $41 million and $30 million, respectively.
Foreclosed Property
Ginnie Mae records foreclosed property when a MSS receives marketable title to a property
which has completed the foreclosure process in the respective state. The asset is measured as the
principal and interest of a loan which is in the process of being conveyed to an insuring agency,
net of an allowance. These assets are conveyed to the appropriate insuring agency within six
months. Foreclosed property has previously been placed on nonaccrual status after the loan was
repurchased from a pool. These properties differ from properties held for sale because they will
be conveyed to an insuring agency, and not sold by the MSS.
The allowance for foreclosed property is estimated based on actual and expected recovery
experience including expected recoveries from FHA, USDA, VA, and PIH. The aggregate of the
foreclosed property and the allowance for foreclosed property is the amount that Ginnie Mae
determines to be collectible. Ginnie Mae records a charge-off as a reduction to the allowance for
loan losses when losses are confirmed through the receipt of assets in full satisfaction of a loan,
such as the receipt of claims proceeds from an insuring agency. Management is currently
assessing current and historic accounting practices for potential restatement. Foreclosed
Property, net as of September 30, 2016, was $596 million, and, net as of September 30, 2015,
was $769 million.
Short Sale Claims Receivable
As an alternative to foreclosure, a property may be sold for its appraised value even if the sale
results in a short sale where the proceeds are not sufficient to pay off the mortgage. Ginnie
Maes MSSs analyze mortgage loans HFI for factors such as delinquency, appraised value of the
loan, and market in locale of the loan to identify loans that may be short sale eligible. These
transactions are analyzed and approved by Ginnie Maes MBS program office.
For FHA insured loans, for which the underlying property was sold in a short sale, the FHA
typically pays Ginnie Mae the difference between the proceeds received from the sale and the
total contractual amount of the mortgage loan and interest at the debenture rate. Hence, Ginnie
Mae does not incur any losses as a result of the short sale of an FHA insured loan. Ginnie Mae
records a short sale claims receivable while it awaits repayment of this amount from the insurer.
For short sales claims receivable for which Ginnie Mae believes that collection is not probable,
Ginnie Mae records an allowance for short sales claims receivable. The allowance for short sales
claims receivable is estimated based on actual and expected recovery experience including
expected recoveries from FHA, USDA, VA, and PIH. The aggregate of the short sales
76
Notes to Financial Statements
receivable and the allowance for short sales receivable is the amount that Ginnie Mae determines
to be collectible. Ginnie Mae records a charge-off as a reduction to the allowance for loan losses
when losses are confirmed through the receipt of claims in full satisfaction of a loan from an
insuring agency. Management is currently assessing current and historic accounting practices for
potential restatement. Short Sale Claims Receivable, net as of September 30, 2016 and 2015,
was $107 and $45 million, respectively.
Equipment $ 9 $ (3) $ 6 $ 7 $ - $ 7
Leasehold Improvements - - - - - -
Internal Use Software 217 (172) 45 186 (152) 34
Internal Use Software in Development 330 - 330 288 - 288
Total $ 556 $ (175) $ 381 $ 481 $ (152) $ 329
77
Notes to Financial Statements
Intragovernmental Assets:
Other Assets $ - $ - $ 5 $ 38 $ 43
Total Intragovernmental Assets - - 5 38 43
Public:
Escrow Monies Deposited at Minority-Owned Banks $ 29 $ - $ - $ - $ 29
Other Assets 24 - - - 24
Total $ 53 $ - $ 5 $ 38 $ 96
2015
Description FHA Ginnie Mae Section 8 Other Total
Intragovernmental Assets:
Other Assets $ 1 $ - $ 4 $ 4 $ 9
Total Intragovernmental Assets 1 - 4 4 9
Public:
Escrow Monies Deposited at Minority-Owned Banks $ 37 $ - $ - $ - $ 37
Other Assets 8 - - - 8
Total $ 46 $ - $ 4 $ 4 $ 54
Intragovernmental Other Assets primarily represent the Departments Policy, Development and
Research program. Other Assets with the public represent FHAs (1) escrow monies collected
that are deposited in minority-owned banks, (2) deposits in transit, and (3) advances and
prepayments.
78
Notes to Financial Statements
HUDs other governmental liabilities principally consist of Ginnie Maes deferred revenue,
FHAs special receipt account, and the Departments payroll costs. Further disclosures of
HUDs other liabilities are also found in Note 17.
Classification of Debt:
Intragovernmental Debt $ 31,002
Debt held by the Public 8
Total $ 31,010
79
Notes to Financial Statements
The following shows HUD borrowings, and borrowings by PHAs/TDHEs for which HUD is
responsible for repayment, as of September 30, 2015 (dollars in millions):
Beginning Net Ending
Description Balance Borrowings Balance
Classification of Debt:
Intragovernmental Debt $ 27,150
Debt held by the Public 8
Total $ 27,158
FHAs overall Debt for U.S. Borrowings from Treasury did not change from FY 2015 to
FY 2016; however, FHA did alter the presentation of borrowings from both from Treasury and
from FFB due to a reclassification amount of $19 million from the borrowings from FFB
(decreased borrowings from $122 million to $103 million), to our borrowings from Treasury
(increased from $26,901 million to $26,921 million). The reclassification was a correction of an
error in the first year of our FFB reporting in FY 2015.
Interest paid on borrowings as of September 30, 2016 and 2015, was $1,221 million and
$1,191 million, respectively. The purpose of these borrowings is discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Borrowings from the U.S. Treasury
In FY 2016 and FY 2015, FHA had outstanding borrowings of $30,319 million and
$26,901 million, respectively, from the U.S. Treasury. In accordance with Credit Reform
accounting, FHA borrows from the U.S. Treasury when cash is needed in its financing accounts.
Usually, the need for cash arises when FHA has to transfer the negative credit subsidy amounts
related to new loan disbursements and existing loan modifications from the financing accounts to
the general fund receipt account (for cases in GI/SRI funds) or to the capital reserve account (for
cases in MMI/CMHI funds). In some instances, borrowings are also needed to transfer the credit
subsidy related to downward re-estimates and when available cash is less than claim payments
due. These borrowings carried interest rates ranging from 1.02 percent to 7.59 percent during
FY 2016.
HUDs Other Programs had outstanding borrowings in FY 2016 and FY 2015 of $128 million
and $127 million, respectively. These borrowings were for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee
Program, the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, the Emergency Homeowners
Loan Program and the Green Retrofit Program from the U.S. Treasury.
80
Notes to Financial Statements
Borrowings from the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) and the Public
In FY 2016 and FY 2015, FHA had outstanding borrowings of $555 million and $122 million,
respectively, from the FFB.
During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, PHAs obtained loans from the private sector and from the
FFB to finance development and rehabilitation of low rent housing projects. HUD is repaying
these borrowings on behalf of the PHAs, through the Low Rent Public Housing program. For
borrowings from the public, interest is payable throughout the year.
Before July 1, 1986, the FFB purchased notes issued by units of general local government and
guaranteed by HUD under Section 108. These notes had various maturities and carried interest
rates that were one-eighth of one percent above rates on comparable Treasury obligations. The
FFB held substantially all outstanding notes, and no note purchased by the FFB has ever been
declared in default. In March of FY 2010, HUD repaid all FFB borrowings for the Low Rent
Public Housing program.
Starting in FY 2015, FHA began a Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Share program, an inter-
agency partnership between HUD, FFB and the Housing Finance Authorities (HFAs). The FFB
Risk Share program provides funding for multifamily mortgage loans insured by FHA. Under
this program, FHA records a direct loan from the public and borrowing from FFB. The program
does not change the basic structure of Risk Sharing; it only substitutes FFB as the funding
source. The HFAs would originate and service the loans, and share in any losses.
81
Notes to Financial Statements
82
Notes to Financial Statements
The following shows HUDs Other Liabilities as of September 30, 2015 (dollars in millions):
Non-
Description Current Current Total
Intragovernmental Liabilities
FHA Special Receipt Account Liability $ - $ 2,888 $ 2,888
Unfunded FECA Liability 16 - 16
Employer Contributions and Payroll Taxes - 5 5
Miscellaneous Receipts Payable to Treasury - 228 228
Advances to Federal Agencies - 11 11
Total Intragovernmental Liabilities $ 16 $ 3,132 $ 3,148
Other Liabilities
FHA Other Liabilities $ - $ 412 $ 412
FHA Escrow Funds Related to Mortgage Notes - 314 314
Ginnie Mae Deferred Income 272 34 306
Deferred Credits - 18 18
Deposit Funds - 13 13
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave 79 - 79
Accrued Funded Payroll Benefits - 33 33
Contingent Liability 55 - 55
Other 7 2 9
Total Other Liabilities $ 429 $ 3,958 $ 4,387
83
Notes to Financial Statements
$1,213,376 million and $1,178,052 million, respectively, as disclosed in Note 8J. The maximum
claim amount (MCA) outstanding for FHAs reverse mortgage insurance program (HECM) as of
September 30, 2016 and 2015, was $148,097 million and $149,645 million, respectively. As of
September 30, 2016 and 2015, the insurance-in-force (the outstanding balance of active loans)
was $104,648 million and $105,471 million, respectively, as disclosed in Note 8J. The HECM
insurance in force includes balances drawn by the mortgagee, interest accrued on the balances
drawn, service charges, and mortgage insurance premiums. The maximum claim amount is the
dollar ceiling to which the outstanding loan balance can grow before being assigned to FHA.
B. Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities
Ginnie Mae financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk include guarantees of MBS and
commitments to guarantee MBS. The securities are backed by pools of FHA, USDA, VA, and
PIH mortgage loans. Ginnie Mae is exposed to credit loss in the event of non-performance by
other parties to the financial instruments. The total amount of Ginnie Mae guaranteed securities
outstanding at September 30, 2016 and 2015, was approximately $1,728,091 million and
$1,608,790 million, respectively. However, Ginnie Maes potential loss is considerably less
because of the financial strength of the Departments issuers. Additionally, in the event of
default, the underlying mortgages serve as primary collateral and FHA, USDA, VA, and PIH
insurance or guarantee indemnifies Ginnie Mae for most losses.
During the mortgage closing period and prior to granting its guaranty, Ginnie Mae enters into
commitments to guarantee MBS. The commitment ends when the MBS are issued or when the
commitment period expires. Ginnie Maes risks related to outstanding commitments are much
less than for outstanding securities due, in part, to Ginnie Maes ability to limit commitment
authority granted to individual issuers of MBS. Outstanding commitments as of
September 30, 2016 and 2015, were $95,578 million and $159,568 million, respectively.
Generally, Ginnie Maes MBS pools are diversified among issuers and geographic areas. No
significant geographic concentrations of credit risk exist; however, to a limited extent, securities
are concentrated among issuers.
In FY 2016 and FY 2015, Ginnie Mae issued a total of $102,529 million and $93,092 million,
respectively, in its multi-class securities program. The estimated outstanding balance for the
complete multi-class securities program (REMICs, Platinums, etc.) at September 30, 2016 and
2015, were $473,217 million and $472,677 million, respectively. These guaranteed securities do
not subject Ginnie Mae to additional credit risk beyond that assumed under the MBS program.
C. Section 108 Loan Guarantees
Under HUDs Loan Guarantee (Section 108) program, recipients of the CDBG Entitlement
Grant program funds may pledge future grant funds as collateral for loans guaranteed by HUD
(these loans were provided from private lenders since July 1, 1986). Section 108 provides
entitlement communities with a source of financing for projects that are too large to be financed
84
Notes to Financial Statements
from annual grants. The amount of loan guarantees outstanding as of September 30, 2016 and
2015, was $1,708 million and $2,012 million, respectively. HUDs management believes its
exposure in providing these loan guarantees is limited, since loan repayments can be offset from
future CDBG Entitlement Program Funds and, if necessary, other funds provided to the recipient
by HUD. HUD has never had a loss under this program since its inception in 1974.
Ginnie Mae
Ginnie Mae is a self-financed government corporation, whose program operations are financed
by a variety of fees, such as guaranty, commitment, new issuer, handling, and transfer servicing
fees, which are to be used only for Ginnie Maes legislatively authorized mission. In FY 2016,
Ginnie Mae was authorized to use $23 million for payroll and payroll related expense, funded by
commitment fees.
85
Notes to Financial Statements
86
Notes to Financial Statements
the direct administrative expenses incurred in program operations. Activities are initially
financed via transfer from the Manufactured Housing General Fund.
The following shows funds from dedicated collections as of September 30, 2016 (dollars in
millions):
Tenant Project
Based Based Rental Manufactued Total
Rental Rental Housing Flexible Housing Fees Recovery Earmarked
Ginnie Mae Assistance Assistance Assistance Subsidy Trust Fund Act Funds Other Eliminations Funds
Balance Sheet
Debt - Intragovernmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5 $ - $ - $ 5
Accounts Payable - Intragovernmental - - - - - - - - -
Accounts Payable - Public 113 - - - - 3 - - - 116
Loan Guarantees - - - - - - - - - -
Loss Liability 2 - - - - - - - - 2
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental - - - - - - - - - -
Other Liabilities - Public 321 - - - - - - - - 321
Total Liabilities $ 436 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3 $ 5 $ - $ - $ 444
87
Notes to Financial Statements
The following shows funds from dedicated collections as of September 30, 2015 (dollars in
millions):
Tenant Project
Based Based Rental Manufactued Total
Rental Rental Housing Flexible Housing Fees Recovery Earmarked
Ginnie Mae Assistance Assistance Assistance Subsidy Trust Fund Act Funds Other Funds
Balance Sheet
Debt - Intragovernmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3 $ - $ 3
Accounts Payable - Intragovernmental - - - - - - - -
Accounts Payable - Public 135 - - - - - - - 135
Loan Guarantees - - - - - - - - -
Loss Liability - - - - - - - - -
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental - - - - - - - - -
Other Liabilities - Public 314 - - - - - - - 314
Total Liabilities $ 449 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3 $ - $ 452
88
Notes to Financial Statements
two reporting entities within the Federal government. Intragovernmental costs are identified by
the source of the goods and services; both the buyer and seller are Federal entities. Revenues
recognized by the Department may also be reported as non-Federal if the goods or services are
subsequently sold to the public. Public activity involves exchange transactions between the
reporting entity and a non-Federal entity.
The following shows HUDs intragovernmental costs and exchange revenue (dollars in
millions):
Low Rent
Federal Section 8 Public Housing Homeless Housing for Community
2016
Housing Rental Loans and Assistance the Elderly Development
Administration Ginnie Mae Assistance Grants Grants and Disabled Block Grants HOME All Other Consolidating
Intragovernmental
Costs $ 1,239 $ 4 $ 49 $ 29 $ 6 $ 17 $ 18 $ 4 $ 513 $ 1,879
Public Costs (18,997) 428 30,604 2,966 1,951 957 6,268 1,163 5,838 31,178
Subtotal Costs $ (17,758) $ 432 $ 30,653 $ 2,995 $ 1,957 $ 974 $ 6,286 $ 1,167 $ 6,351 $ 33,057
Unassigned Costs $ 262 $ 262
Total Costs $ 33,319
Intragovernmental
Earned Revenue $ (1,151) $ (84) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (20) $ (1,255)
Public Earned Revenue (67) (1,562) - - 5 (109) - - (17) (1,750)
Total Earned Revenue (1,218) (1,646) - - 5 (109) - - (37) (3,005)
Net Cost of Operations $ (18,976) $ (1,214) $ 30,653 $ 2,995 $ 1,962 $ 865 $ 6,286 $ 1,167 $ 6,576 $ 30,314
Low Rent
Federal Section 8 Public Housing Homeless Housing for Community
2015
Housing Rental Loans and Assistance the Elderly Development
Administration Ginnie Mae Assistance Grants Grants and Disabled Block Grants HOME All Other Consolidating
Intragovernmental
Costs $ 1,206 $ 4 $ 70 $ 37 $ 13 $ 47 $ 20 $ 8 $ 316 $ 1,721
Public Costs (17,409) (238) 29,412 2,798 1,881 990 7,547 1,233 5,755 31,969
Subtotal Costs $ (16,203) $ (234) $ 29,482 $ 2,835 $ 1,894 $ 1,037 $ 7,567 $ 1,241 $ 6,071 $ 33,690
Unassigned Costs $ 218 $ 218
T otal Costs $ 33,908
Intragovernmental
Earned Revenue $ (1,791) $ (128) $ - $ - $ (4) $ - $ - $ - $ (12) $ (1,935)
Public Earned Revenue (58) (1,427) - - - (136) - - (17) (1,638)
Total Earned Revenue (1,849) (1,555) - - (4) (136) - - (29) (3,573)
Net Cost of Operations $ (18,052) $ (1,789) $ 29,482 $ 2,835 $ 1,890 $ 901 $ 7,567 $ 1,241 $ 6,260 $ 30,335
89
Notes to Financial Statements
TOTAL:
Commerce and Housing Credit $ (17,241) $ (2,985) $ (20,226)
Community and Regional Development 6,463 (6) 6,457
Income Security 43,757 (12) 43,745
Administration of Justice 78 (1) 77
Other Multiple Functions 262 (1) 261
TOTAL: $ 33,319 $ (3,005) $ 30,314
90
Notes to Financial Statements
The following shows HUDs total cost and earned revenue by budget functional classification for
FY 2015 (dollars in millions):
Budget Functional Classification Gross Cost Earned Revenue Net Cost
Intragovernmental:
Commerce and Housing Credit $ 1,212 $ (1,920) $ (708)
Community and Regional Development 86 - 86
Income Security 424 (15) 409
Other Multiple Functions (1) - (1)
Total Intragovernmental 1,721 (1,935) (214)
With the Public:
Commerce and Housing Credit $ (17,734) $ (1,629) $ (19,363)
Community and Regional Development 7,659 - 7,659
Income Security 41,676 (7) 41,669
Administration of Justice 61 (1) 60
Other Multiple Functions 307 (1) 306
Total with the Public $ 31,969 $ (1,638) $ 30,331
TOTAL:
Commerce and Housing Credit $ (16,522) $ (3,549) $ (20,071)
Community and Regional Development 7,745 - 7,745
Income Security 42,318 (22) 42,296
Administration of Justice 61 (1) 60
Other Multiple Functions 306 (1) 305
TOTAL: $ 33,908 $ (3,573) $ 30,335
91
Notes to Financial Statements
The following table shows the expenditures allocated to HUDs Strategic Goals for FY 2016
(dollars in millions):
Management
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Objectives Total
Programs
FHA $ (12,335) $ (2,846) $ (759) $ (3,036) $ - $ (18,976)
Ginnie Mae (910) (304) - - - (1,214)
Section 8 Rental Assistance - 25,066 200 5,387 - 30,653
Low Rent Public Housing Loans and Grants 419 2,197 75 304 - 2,995
Homeless Assistance Grants - 1,373 589 - - 1,962
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled - 538 76 251 - 865
Community Development Block Grants 1,257 314 943 3,772 - 6,286
HOME 315 630 - 222 - 1,167
All Other Programs 365 3,696 805 1,365 83 6,314
Total (10,889) 30,664 1,929 8,265 83 30,052
Total 30,314
The following table shows the expenditures allocated to HUDs Strategic Goals for FY 2015
(dollars in millions):
Management
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Objectives Total
Programs
FHA $ (11,734) $ (2,708) $ (722) $ (2,888) $ - $ (18,052)
Ginnie Mae (1,342) (447) - - - (1,789)
Section 8 Rental Assistance - 24,109 192 5,181 - 29,482
Low Rent Public Housing Loans and Grants 396 2,080 71 288 - 2,835
Homeless Assistance Grants - 1,323 567 - - 1,890
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled - 561 79 261 - 901
Community Development Block Grants 1,513 379 1,135 4,540 - 7,567
HOME 335 670 - 236 - 1,241
All Other Programs 206 3,793 769 1,242 32 6,042
Total (10,626) 29,760 2,091 8,860 32 30,117
Total 30,335
92
Notes to Financial Statements
The following table shows the cross-cutting of HUDs major program areas that incur costs that
cross multiple program areas for FY 2016 (dollars in millions):
Public and Community
Indian Planning and
HUD's Cross-Cutting Programs Housing Housing Development Other Consolidated
S ection 8
Intragovernmental Gross Costs $ 36 $ 13 $ - $ - $ 49
Intragovernmental Earned Revenues - - - - -
Intragovernmental Net Costs $ 36 $ 13 $ - $ - $ 49
All Other
Intragovernmental Gross Costs $ 128 $ 109 $ 38 $ 238 $ 513
Intragovernmental Earned Revenues - - - (20) (20)
Intragovernmental Net Costs $ 128 $ 109 $ 38 $ 218 $ 493
Gross Costs with the Public $ 4,812 $ 214 $ 550 $ 262 $ 5,838
Earned Revenues - - - (17) (17)
Net Costs with the Public $ 4,812 $ 214 $ 550 $ 245 $ 5,821
Net Program Costs (including indirect costs) $ 5,029 $ 427 $ 657 $ 463 $ 6,576
93
Notes to Financial Statements
The following table shows the Departments cross-cutting costs among its major program areas
for FY 2015 (dollars in millions):
Public and Community
Indian Planning and
HUD's Cross-Cutting Programs Housing Housing Development Other Consolidated
S ection 8
Intragovernmental Gross Costs $ 37 $ 32 $ - $ - $ 69
Intragovernmental Earned Revenues - - - - -
Intragovernmental Net Costs $ 37 $ 32 $ - $ - $ 69
CDBG
Intragovernmental Gross Costs $ - $ - $ 20 $ - $ 20
Intragovernmental Earned Revenues - - - - -
Intragovernmental Net Costs $ - $ - $ 20 $ - $ 20
All Other
Intragovernmental Gross Costs $ 86 $ 153 $ 50 $ 27 $ 316
Intragovernmental Earned Revenues 7 (1) 4 (23) (13)
Intragovernmental Net Costs $ 93 $ 152 $ 54 $ 4 $ 303
Gross Costs with the Public $ 4,886 $ 353 $ 550 $ (34) $ 5,755
Earned Revenues - (15) - (1) (16)
Net Costs with the Public $ 4,886 $ 338 $ 550 $ (35) $ 5,739
Net Program Costs (including indirect costs) $ 5,042 $ 592 $ 657 $ (31) $ 6,260
94
Notes to Financial Statements
Mortgage Insurance (MMI), General Insurance (GI), Special Risk Insurance (SRI), and
Cooperative Management Housing Insurance (CMHI), with the MMI fund being the largest.
There is a fifth fund, Hope for Homeowners (H4H), which became operational in FY 2009 and
which contains minimal activity.
The following table shows Net Cost detail for the FHA (dollars in millions):
Fiscal Year 2016
Single Family Multifamily/Healthcare Administrative
Forward Program HECM Program Program Costs Total
Costs
Intragovernmental Gross Costs $ 791 $ 234 $ 196 $ 17 $ 1,238
Intragovernmental Earned Revenues (662) (403) (85) - (1,150)
Intragovernmental Net Costs $ 129 $ (169) $ 111 $ 17 $ 88
Gross Costs with the Public $ (18,763) $ (306) $ (518) $ 591 $ (18,996)
Earned Revenues (14) (1) (53) - (68)
Net Costs with the Public $ (18,777) $ (307) $ (571) $ 591 $ (19,064)
Gross Costs with the Public $ (13,284) $ (3,994) $ (699) $ 567 $ (17,410)
Earned Revenues (11) (1) (46) - (58)
Net Costs with the Public $ (13,295) $ (3,995) $ (745) $ 567 $ (17,468)
95
Notes to Financial Statements
HUD the authority to enter into multiyear contracts within annual and total contract limitation
ceilings. HUD then drew on and continues to draw on permanent indefinite appropriations to
fund the current years portion of those multiyear contracts. Because of the duration of these
contracts (up to 40 years), significant authority exists to draw on the permanent indefinite
appropriations. Beginning in FY 1988, the Section 8 and the Section 235/236 programs began
operating under multiyear budget authority whereby the Congress appropriates the funds up-
front for the entire contract term in the initial year.
HUDs commitment balances are based on the amount of unliquidated obligations recorded in
HUDs accounting records with no provision for changes in future eligibility, and thus are equal
to the maximum amounts available under existing agreements and contracts. Unexpended
appropriations and cumulative results of operations shown in the Consolidated Balance Sheet
comprise funds in the U.S. Treasury available to fund existing commitments that were provided
through up-front appropriations and also include permanent indefinite appropriations received
in excess of amounts used to fund the pre-1988 subsidy contracts and offsetting collections.
FHA enters into long-term contracts for both program and administrative services. FHA funds
these contractual obligations through appropriations, permanent indefinite authority, and
offsetting collections. The appropriated funds are primarily used to support administrative
contract expenses while the permanent indefinite authority and the offsetting collections are used
for program services.
The following shows HUDs obligations and contractual commitments under its grant, subsidy,
and loan programs as of September 30, 2016 (dollars in millions):
Undelivered Orders
96
Notes to Financial Statements
The following shows HUDs obligations and contractual commitments under its grant, subsidy,
and loan programs as of September 30, 2015 (dollars in millions):
Undelivered Orders
B. Administrative Commitments
In addition to the above contractual commitments, HUD has entered into administrative
commitments which are reservations of funds for specific projects (including those for which a
contract has not yet been executed) to obligate all or part of those funds. Administrative
commitments become contractual commitments upon contract execution.
The following chart shows HUDs administrative commitments as of September 30, 2016
(dollars in millions):
Reservations
Permanent
Unexpended Indefinite Offsetting Total
Programs Appropriations Appropriations Collections Reservations
97
Notes to Financial Statements
The following chart shows HUDs administrative commitments as of September 30, 2015
(dollars in millions):
Reservations
Permanent
Unexpended Indefinite Offsetting Total
Programs Appropriations Appropriations Collections Reservations
98
Notes to Financial Statements
For FY 2015, an analysis to compare HUDs Statement of Budgetary Resources to the
Presidents Budget of the United States was performed to identify any differences.
The following shows the difference between Budgetary Resources reported in the Statement of
Budgetary Resources and the Presidents Budget for FY 2015 (dollars in millions):
Budgetary Obligations Distributed Net
Resources Incurred Offsetting Outlays
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources $ 199,095 $ 119,220 $ (2,844) $ 51,889
Difference #1 - Resources related to HUD's expired accounts
not reported in the President's Budget (892) (56) - (1)
Difference #2 - Offsetting receipts not included in the President's Budget 1 - 11 (3)
Difference #3 - Ginnie Mae restatement of the Statement of Budgetary Resources - (33) - -
Difference #4 - Rounding issues 7 (3) - 4
United States Budget $ 198,211 $ 119,128 $ (2,833) $ 51,889
99
Notes to Financial Statements
2016 2015
Other Resources
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement $ - $ -
Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 158 65
FHA Transfers Out to U.S. Dept. of Treasury for negative subsidies (2,063) (4,217)
CFO Other Resources - 4
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities $ (1,905) $ (4,148)
Total Resources Used to Finance Activities $ 43,849 $ 43,472
Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated for Goods/Services/Benefits
Services Ordered but Not Yet Provided $ 3,317 $ 2,867
Credit Program Resources that Increase LLG or Allowance for Subsidy 517 243
Credit Program Resources not Included in Net Cost (Surplus) of Operations - -
Resources that Finance the Acquisition of Assets or Liquidation of Liabilities (49,156) (48,956)
Resources that Fund Expenses from Prior Periods (6,886) (14,991)
Other Changes to Net Obligated Resources Not Affecting Net Cost of Operations 56,032 62,720
Other 1,352 3,259
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of Net Cost of Operations $ 5,176 $ 5,142
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 49,025 $ 48,614
Components of Net Cost of Operations Not Requiring/Generating Resources in the
Current Period
Upward/Downward Re-estimates of Credit Subsidy Expense $ (9,737) $ (4,917)
Increase in Exchange Revenue Receivable from the Public (109) (334)
Change in Loan Loss Reserve (7) (1)
Revaluation of Assets or Liabilities - 19
Depreciation and Amortization 21 16
Changes in Bad Debt Expenses Related to Credit Reform Receivables 5 (42)
Reduction of Credit Subsidy Expense from Guarantee Endorsements and Modifications (9,716) (13,607)
Increase in Annual Leave Liability 57 -
Other 775 587
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations Not Requiring/Generating Resources in the
Current Period $ (18,711) $ (18,279)
With the exception of Ginnie Mae, HUD included the following items in line 2 above titled
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries: Actual Offsetting
Collections (SBR line 4176), Changes in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources
(SBR line 4177) and Recoveries (SBR line 3042). Due to collections precluded from obligation,
100
Notes to Financial Statements
Ginnie Mae used an alternative calculation as follows: Spending Authority from Offsetting
Collections (SBR line 1890) and Recoveries (SBR line 3042).
101
Notes to Financial Statements
Sources and Net Costs of Operations on the Statement of Changes in Net Position; and related
footnotes.
102
Notes to Financial Statements
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental Liabilities
Accounts Payable (Note 13) $ 15 16 $ (1)
Debt (Note 14) 27,150 27,150 -
Other Intragovernmental Liabilities (Note 17) 2,610 3,148 (538)
Total Intragovernmental $ 29,775 30,314 $ (539)
Net Position
Unexpended Appropriations - Funds From Dedicated Collections (Note 20) $ (320) (305) $ (15)
Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds 51,435 51,420 15
Cumulative Results of Operations - Funds From Dedicated Collections (Note 20) 21,417 21,417 -
Cumulative Results of Operations - Other Funds 20,647 21,482 (835)
TOTAL NET POSITION - Funds From Dedicated Collections 21,097 21,112 (15)
TOTAL NET POSITION - All Other Funds 72,082 72,902 (820)
Total Net Position $ 93,179 94,014 $ (835)
103
Notes to Financial Statements
Unexpended Appropriations:
Beginning Balances $ 56,220 $ 56,221 $ (1)
Adjustments
Changes in Accounting Principles - - -
Corrections of Errors 574 574 -
Beginning Balances, As Adjusted $ 56,794 $ 56,795 $ (1)
104
Notes to Financial Statements
September 30, 2015 September 30, 2015
Statement of Budgetary Resources Consolidated Financial Consolidated Financial Impact of
(dollars in millions) Statements (without Statements (with September 30, 2015
restatement) restatement) Restatements
Budgetary Resources:
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward $ 84,489 $ 84,489 $ -
Adjustments to Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, October 1 - (13) 13
Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, Oct 1, As Adjusted $ 84,489 $ 84,477 $ 12
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 1,107 1,113 (6)
Other changes in unobligated balance (709) (707) (2)
Unobligated balance from prior year budget authority, net $ 84,887 $ 84,883 $ 4
Unpaid Obligations:
Unpaid obligations, brought forward, Oct 1 $ 43,598 $ 43,598 $ -
Adjustments to unpaid obligations, start of year (+ or -) - 15 (15)
Obligations incurred 119,186 119,220 (34)
Outlays (gross) (-) (119,635) (119,635) -
Actual transfers, unpaid obligations (net) (+ or -) - - -
Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations (-) (1,107) (1,113) 6
Uncollected Payments:
Uncollected payments, Fed sources, brought forward, Oct 1 (-) $ (64) $ (69) $ 5
Adjustment to uncollected payments, Fed sources, start of year (+ or -) - - -
Change in uncollected payments, Fed sources (+ or -) (6) (5) (1)
Actual Transfers, uncollected payments from Federal sources (net) (+ or -) - - -
Memorandum Entries
Obligated balance, start of year (+ or -) $ 43,534 $ 43,544 $ (10)
Obligated balance, end of year (net) $ 41,972 $ 42,011 $ (39)
105
Notes to Financial Statements
Notification Letter for the Reissuance of the Departments Fiscal Year 2016
Agency Financial Report (AFR)
The eleventh-hour identification of material changes in component financial statements initiated
multiple updates and changes in the Departmental consolidated financial statements and
notes. This had a cascading effect on the remainder of the schedule, resulting in a truncated
schedule for preparation and review of the final materials, including weaknesses in reconciling
and cross-checking internal controls and limited the time for audit by OIG. After release of the
consolidated financial statements on November 15, 2016, the audit of the financial statements
continued. This resulted in the discovery of errors in the financial information after
release. These errors were generally attributed to the last-minute material changes at the
component level, which were not fully incorporated throughout the financial information due to a
compressed timeframe and weaknesses in internal controls processes, including shifting
conditions and limitations on the ability to rapidly adjust to changing circumstances.
HUD determined that its FY 2016 financial statements contained a misclassification between line
items on the Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) of $557 million specifically
impacting the lines for Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, Apportioned Unexpired,
Unapportioned Unexpired, and Unpaid Obligations Brought Forward. In addition, notes were
updated for inconsistencies with the FY 2016 financial statements, which had compounding
consequences, thus inflating the errors values. These inconsistencies resulted in a gross
adjustment of $253,781 million for FY 2016 in the presentation of the notes and did not impact
the principal financial statements. Also, HUD determined that its FY 2015 financial statements
contained a misclassification between line items on the SBR of $8 million, specifically impacting
the lines for Uncollected Payments from Federal Sources Beginning Balance and Actual
Offsetting Collections, and an inconsistency within the FY 2015 Statement of Changes in Net
Position (SCNP) of $2,810 million, specifically impacting the lines for Cumulative Results of
Operations Beginning of Period Balance and Adjustments Corrections and Errors, as well
as Total Financing Sources Dedicated and Total Financing Sources All Other. In addition,
notes were updated for number inconsistencies with the financial statements, which had
compounding consequences, thus inflating the errors values. These inconsistencies resulted in a
gross adjustment of $262,662 million for FY 2015 in the presentation of the notes and schedules
and did not impact the financial statements. Overall, the combined adjustments to the financial
statements resulted in a net adjustment of $3 million, but no change in HUDs financial position
or impact to our programs. In other words, while the presentation of the financial information
was inaccurate, the correction of these inaccuracies did not represent a change in cash balances
or any improper payments, or misallocation of HUD resources.
106
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
107
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) provides formula grants to
states and localities (used often in partnership with local nonprofit groups) to fund a wide
range of activities that build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for low-income
persons.
Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) The Supportive Housing Program (SHP) was
repealed and replaced by the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program effective FY 2012. The
CoC is a body of stakeholders in a specific geographic area that plans and implements
homeless assistance strategies (including the coordination of resources) to address the
critical needs of homeless persons and facilitate their transition to jobs and independent
living.
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) provide formula funding to local units of
government for homelessness prevention and to improve the number and quality of
emergency and transitional shelters for homeless individuals and families.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) stabilizes communities that have suffered
from foreclosures and abandonment. Through the purchase and redevelopment of
foreclosed and abandoned homes and residential properties, and by providing technical
assistance (NSP TA), the goal of the program is being realized.
Housing Opportunities for People with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) provides education
assistance and an array of housing subsidy assistance and supportive services to assist
low-income families and individuals who are living with the challenges of HIV/AIDS
and risks of homelessness.
Rural Innovation Fund (RIF) offers grants throughout the nation to address distressed
housing conditions and concentrated poverty. The grants promote an entrepreneurial
approach to affordable housing and economic development in rural areas by providing
job training, homeownership counseling and affordable housing to residents of rural and
tribal communities.
Community Compass (formerly OneCPD) provides technical assistance and capacity
building to CPD grantees including onsite and remote training, workshops, and 1:1
assistance.
PIH ensures safe, decent, and affordable housing, creates opportunities for residents self-
sufficiency and economic independence, and assures the fiscal integrity of all program
participants. HUD makes stewardship investments through the following PIH programs:
Indian Community Development Block Grants (ICDBG) provide funds to Indian
organizations to develop viable communities, including decent housing, a suitable living
environment, and economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate-income
recipients.
108
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) program provides an annual
block grant to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) for a range of
affordable housing activities to benefit low-income Native Hawaiians eligible to reside
on the Hawaiian home lands. The DHHL has the authority under the NHHBG program
to develop new and innovative affordable housing initiatives and programs based on local
needs, including down payment and other mortgage assistance programs, transitional
housing, domestic abuse shelters, and revolving loan funds.
Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG) provide funds needed to allow tribal housing
organizations to maintain existing units and to begin development of new units to meet
their critical long-term housing needs.
HOPE VI Revitalization Grants (HOPE VI) provide support for the improvement of
the living environment of public housing residents in distressed public housing units.
Some investments support the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of property
owned by the PHA, state or local governments, while others help to provide education
and job training to residents of the communities targeted for rehabilitation.
Choice Neighborhoods grants transform distressed neighborhoods and public and
assisted projects into viable and sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods by linking
housing improvements with appropriate services, schools, public assets, transportation,
and access to jobs.
The Public Housing (PH) Capital Fund provides grants to PHAs to improve the
physical conditions and to upgrade the management and operation of existing public
housing.
The OLHCHH program seeks to eliminate childhood lead poisoning caused by lead-based paint
hazards and to address other childhood diseases and injuries, such as asthma, unintentional
injury, and carbon monoxide poisoning, caused by substandard housing conditions.
The Lead Technical Assistance Division, in support of the Departmental Lead Hazard
Control program, supports technical assistance and the conduct of technical studies and
demonstrations to identify innovative methods to create lead-safe housing at reduced
cost. In addition, these programs are designed to increase the awareness of lead
professionals, parents, building owners, housing and public health professionals, and
others with respect to lead-based paint and related property-based health issues.
Lead Hazard Control Grants help state and local governments and private
organizations and firms control lead-based paint hazards in low-income, privately owned
rental, and owner-occupied housing. The grants build program and local capacity and
generate training opportunities and contracts for low-income residents and businesses in
targeted areas.
109
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
Notes:
1. Disasters are unpredictable, which causes material fluctuations resulting in the prior years
numbers being updated.
2. Low dollar value was due to shrinking resources for new programs.
3. Program is nearing closeout, and the prior years numbers were updated to reflect more
accurate data.
4. Rural Innovation Fund was reported for the first time in FY 2012, however the amount was not
material to be included in the FY 2012 AFR. More than 15 grantees have completed their projects
before FY 2015 as the grant period draws to a close. Amount reported for FY 2015, estimated, due to
reports for the second half of the FY not being due until 10/30/15, is not material to be included in the
AFR.
5. Grants funded in 2015 were awarded in February, 2016.
6. Historical amounts were updated to reflect corrections made since the last report.
7. Choice Neighborhoods reported separately from HOPE VI for the first time in FY 2012,
however the amount was not material to be included in the FY 2012 AFR.
110
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
Human Capital
Investment in Human Capital: Human Capital investments support education and training
programs that are intended to increase or maintain national economic productive capacity. These
investments support HUDs strategic goals, which are to promote self-sufficiency and asset
development of families and individuals; improve community quality of life and economic
vitality; and ensure public trust in HUD. The following table summarizes material program
investments in Human Capital, for fiscal years 2012 through 2016.
Investments in Human Capital
Fiscal Year 2012 2016
(Dollars in millions)
Notes:
1. Prior years amounts were updated because Disaster Grants activities were previously
comingled with other activities.
2. Program is nearing closeout, hence the reduced expenditures in FY 2014, FY 2015 and FY
2016.
3. The FY 2016 expenditure increase is due to increased technical assistance and TA to PIH
grantees and housing authorities, as well as intensive training and direct TA for grantee
compliance with new AFFH requirements.
4. Choice Neighborhoods reported separately from HOPE VI for the first time in FY 2012,
however the amount was not material to be included in the FY 2012 AFR.
Results of Human Capital Investments: The table on the next page presents the results
(number of people trained) of human capital investments made by HUDs CPD, PIH, and
OLHCHH programs for fiscal years 2012 through 2016.
111
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
Results of Investments in Human Capital
Number of People Trained
Fiscal Year 2012 2016
Notes:
1. SHP/CoC- Homeless results are expressed in terms of percentage of persons exiting the
programs having employment income. Goals are changing, and the data is not available to
compare FY 2015 or FY 2016 to the prior year based on the old goal.
2. As of FY 2012, NSP TA outcomes data were under development in the Disaster Recovery
Grant Reporting System. Performance measures were developed that will allow for more
accurate and comprehensive tracking of outcomes. The number of people trained was further
updated in FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015 because of more reliable data. The program is
nearing closeout, hence the reduced numbers of people trained in FY 2014 through FY 2016.
3. FY 2012 was the first year of reporting Rural Innovation Funds results of investments in
human capital in the RSSI, however the amount was not material to be included in the FY
2012 AFR. Expenditures under investments for human capital, in FY 2012 through FY 2015,
were also not material to be included in the AFRs. More than 15 grantees have completed
their projects before FY 2015 as the grant period draws to a close. The number of people
trained in FY2015 was corrected based on the last approved QPR. The final reporting period
for the RIF program was 09/30/2015.
4. FY 2013 was the first year of reporting Community Compass, formerly OneCPDs, results of
investments in human capital in the RSSI. The FY 2015 reported number has been revised, in
order to make the FY 2015 and FY 2016 data comparable, with the same data elements, e.g.,
live in-person and remote; self-paced on line, and recorded trainings.
5. A lack of S&E funding prevented ONAP from offering training in FY 2012-2015. Grantee
received training from HUD staff and, in FY 2016, from two contracted training providers.
Amount invested in FY 2016 was not material to be included in the AFR.
6. New training funds were offered through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
competition for contractors to provide training in FY 2015-2017.
HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods Results of Investments in Human Capital: Since the
inception of the HOPE VI program in FY 1993, the program has made significant investments in
Human Capital related initiatives (i.e., education and training). The following table presents
112
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
HOPE VIs key cumulative performance information for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and
2016, since the programs inception.
Key Results of HOPE VI Program Activities
Fiscal Years 2012 2016
2012 2012 % 2013 2013 %
HOPE VI Service Enrolled Completed Completed Enrolled Completed Completed
Employment Preparation,
Placement, & Retention 1 82,630 N/A N/A 84,792 N/A N/A
Job Skills Training
Programs 33,566 17,753 53% 34,664 18,322 53%
High School Equivalent
Education 17,684 5,164 29% 18,206 5,263 29%
Entrepreneurship Training 3,672 1,613 44% 3,730 1,635 44%
Homeownership
Counseling 16,163 6,964 43% 16,504 7,046 43%
2014 2014 % 2015 2015 %
HOPE VI Service Enrolled Completed Completed Enrolled Completed Completed
Employment Preparation,
Placement, & Retention 1 85,997 N/A N/A 87,005 N/A N/A
Job Skills Training
Programs 35,001 18,536 53% 35,364 18,685 53%
High School Equivalent
Education 18,389 5,315 29% 18,533 5,334 29%
Entrepreneurship Training 3,746 1,649 44% 3,755 1,654 44%
Homeownership
Counseling 16,650 7,160 43% 16,837 7,350 44%
2016 2016 %
HOPE VI Service Enrolled Completed Completed
Employment Preparation,
Placement, & Retention 1 87,564 N/A N/A
Job Skills Training
Programs 35,675 18,877 53%
High School Equivalent
Education 18,705 5,381 29%
Entrepreneurship Training 3,795 1,682 44%
Homeownership
Counseling 17,399 7,804 45%
Notes:
1. Completion data for this service is not provided, as all who enroll are considered recipients of the
training.
The table on the next page presents Choice Neighborhoods cumulative performance information
for fiscal years 2014, 2015 and 2016.
113
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
Key Results of Choice Neighborhoods Program Activities
Fiscal Years 2014 2016
Notes:
1. 2014 was the first year of reporting results for Choice Neighborhoods Human Capital Investments.
2. Program level High School Graduation Rate date is currently not available for 2014, 2015 and 2016
due to metric only requiring individual grantees to enter rates and not numerator and denominator.
114
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
Results of Investments in Research and Development: In support of HUDs lead hazard
control initiatives, the OLHCHH program has conducted various studies. Such studies have
contributed to an overall reduction in the per-housing unit cost of lead hazard evaluation and
control efforts over the last decade. More recently, as indicated in the following table, increased
supply and labor costs have contributed to increases in the per-housing unit cost. The per-
housing unit cost varies by geographic location and the grantees level of participation in control
activities. These studies have also led to the identification of the prevalence of related hazards.
115
Required Supplementary Information
116
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Consolidating Balance Sheet
For the Period Ending September 2016
Dollars in Millions
Government
Federal Housing National Mortgage Public and Indian Housing for the Community
Administration Association Section 8 Rental Housing Loans and Homeless Elderly and Development Block Financial Statement
1 (FHA) (GNMA) Assistance Grants (PIH) Assistance Grants Disabled Grants (CDBG) HOME All Other Eliminations Consolidating
Assets:
Intragovernmental:
Fund balance with Treasury (Note 4) $ 20,820 $ 1,379 $ 9,831 $ 4,519 $ 5,363 $ 2,279 $ 19,358 $ 3,230 $ 6,419 $ - $ 73,198
Short-term Overnight Investments (Note 6) - 15,954 - - - - - - - - 15,954
Long-term Investments held to maturity (Note 6) 36,398 - - - - - - - - - 36,398
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 7) - 7 - - - - - - 1 (7) 1
Loans Receivable - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Assets (Note 12) - - 5 - 1 - - 1 39 (3) 43
Total Intragovernmental Assets 57,218 17,340 9,836 4,519 5,364 2,279 19,358 3,231 6,459 (10) 125,594
Cash (Note 5) - 60 - - - - - - - - 60
Investments (Note 6) 31 - - - - - - - - - 31
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 7) 243 106 68 42 2 14 11 - 125 - 611
Direct Loan and Loan Guarantees, Net (Note 8) 17,742 - - - - 1,171 - - 563 - 19,476
Other Non-Credit Reform Loans (Note 9) - 4,235 - - - - - - - (1,555) 2,680
General Property, Plant, and Equipment (Note 10) - 83 - - - - - - 298 - 381
PIH Prepayments (Note 11) - - 380 - - - - - - - 380
Other Assets (Note 12) 53 - - - - - - - - - 53
Total Assets 75,287 21,824 10,284 4,561 5,366 3,464 19,369 3,231 7,445 (1,565) 149,266
Liabilities:
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable (Note 13) $ 7 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 24 $ (7) $ 24
Debt (Note 14) 30,874 - - - - - - - 128 - 31,002
Other Intragovernmental Liabilities (Note 17) 2,765 - 9 2 10 - - - 241 (3) 3,024
117
Total Intragovernmental Liabilities 33,646 - 9 2 10 - - - 393 (10) 34,050
Net Position:
Unexpended Appropriations - Funds From Dedicated Collections (Note 20) - - 30 - - - - - (372) - (342)
Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 414 - 10,182 4,158 5,178 1,904 17,609 2,912 4,900 - 47,257
Cumulative Results of Operations - Funds From Dedicated Collections (Note 20) - 21,386 - - - - - - 1,256 13 22,655
Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 40,683 - 59 27 2 1,540 11 - 283 (13) 42,592
Total Net Position - Funds From Dedicated Collections - 21,386 30 - - - - - 884 13 22,313
Total Net Position - All Other Funds $ 41,097 $ - $ 10,241 $ 4,185 $ 5,180 $ 3,444 $ 17,620 $ 2,912 $ 5,183 $ (13) $ 89,849
Total Net Position $ 41,097 $ 21,386 $ 10,271 $ 4,185 $ 5,180 $ 3,444 $ 17,620 $ 2,912 $ 6,067 $ - $ 112,162
Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 75,287 $ 21,824 $ 10,284 $ 4,561 $ 5,366 $ 3,464 $ 19,369 $ 3,231 $ 7,445 $ (1,565) $ 149,266
Government
Federal Housing National Mortgage Public and Indian Housing for the Community
Administration Association Section 8 Rental Housing Loans and Homeless Elderly and Development Block Financial Statement
1 (FHA) (GNMA) Assistance Grants (PIH) Assistance Grants Disabled Grants (CDBG) HOME All Other Eliminations Consolidating
Assets:
Intragovernmental:
Fund balance with Treasury (Note 4) $ 39,057 $ 2,142 $ 9,692 $ 4,866 $ 5,161 $ 2,405 $ 21,524 $ 3,448 $ 6,396 $ - $ 94,691
Short-term Overnight Investments (Note 6) - 12,923 - - - - - - - - 12,923
Long-term Investments held to maturity (Note 6) 14,754 - - - - - - - - - 14,754
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 7) - - - - - - - - - - -
Loans Receivable - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Assets (Note 12) 1 - 4 - - - - 1 3 - 9
Total Intragovernmental Assets 53,812 15,065 9,696 4,866 5,161 2,405 21,524 3,449 6,399 - 122,377
Cash (Note 5) - 45 - - - - - - - - 45
Investments (Note 6) 31 - - - - - - - - - 31
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 7) 408 131 33 55 8 14 12 1 118 - 780
Direct Loan and Loan Guarantees, Net (Note 8) 12,923 - - - - 1,417 - - 625 - 14,965
Other Non-Credit Reform Loans (Note 9) - 5,325 - - - - - - - (2,098) 3,227
General Property, Plant, and Equipment (Note 10) - 58 - - - - - - 271 - 329
PIH Prepayments (Note 11) - - 672 - - - - - - - 672
Other Assets (Note 12) 45 - - - - - - - - - 45
Total Assets 67,219 20,624 10,401 4,921 5,169 3,836 21,536 3,450 7,413 (2,098) 142,471
Liabilities:
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable (Note 13) $ 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15 $ - $ 16
Debt (Note 14) 27,023 - - - - - - - 127 - 27,150
Other Intragovernmental Liabilities (Note 17) 2,889 - 13 2 5 - - - 239 - 3,148
118
Total Intragovernmental Liabilities 29,913 - 13 2 5 - - - 381 - 30,314
Net Position:
Unexpended Appropriations - Funds From Dedicated Collections (Note 20) - 1 17 18 16 - - 5 (362) - (305)
Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 871 - 10,364 4,550 4,996 2,272 19,991 3,115 5,261 - 51,420
Cumulative Results of Operations - Funds From Dedicated Collections (Note 20) - 20,174 - - - - - - 1,243 - 21,417
Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 19,883 - - (4) 4 1,538 1 - 60 - 21,482
Total Net Position - Funds From Dedicated Collections - 20,175 17 18 16 - - 5 881 - 21,112
Total Net Position - All Other Funds $ 20,754 $ - $ 10,364 $ 4,546 $ 5,000 $ 3,810 $ 19,992 $ 3,115 $ 5,321 $ - $ 72,902
Total Net Position $ 20,754 $ 20,175 $ 10,381 $ 4,564 $ 5,016 $ 3,810 $ 19,992 $ 3,120 $ 6,202 $ - $ 94,014
Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 67,219 $ 20,624 $ 10,401 $ 4,921 $ 5,169 $ 3,836 $ 21,536 $ 3,450 $ 7,413 $ (2,098) $ 142,471
Government
Federal Housing National Mortgage Public and Indian Housing for the Community
Administration Association Section 8 Rental Housing Loans and Homeless Elderly and Development Block
1 1 (FHA) (GNMA) Assistance Grants (PIH) Assistance Grants Disabled Grants (CDBG) HOME All Other Eliminations Consolidating
Gross Costs With the Public (18,997) 427 30,604 2,966 1,951 957 6,269 1,163 5,838 - 31,178
Less: Earned Revenues From the Public (67) (1,562) - - 5 (109) - - (17) - (1,750)
Net Costs With the Public (19,064) (1,135) 30,604 2,966 1,956 848 6,269 1,163 5,821 - 29,428
Total Net Cost (18,976) (1,214) 30,653 2,995 1,962 865 6,286 1,167 6,314 - 30,052
Net program costs including Assumption Changes (18,976) (1,214) 30,653 2,995 1,962 865 6,286 1,167 6,314 - 30,052
Net Cost of Operations (18,976) (1,214) 30,653 2,995 1,962 865 6,286 1,167 6,577 (1) 30,314
119
For the Period Ending September 2015 (Restated)
Dollars in Millions
Government
Federal Housing National Mortgage Public and Indian Housing for the Community
Administration Association Section 8 Rental Housing Loans and Homeless Elderly and Development Block
1 1 (FHA) (GNMA) Assistance Grants (PIH) Assistance Grants Disabled Grants (CDBG) HOME All Other Eliminations Consolidating
Gross Costs (Note 21) (16,203) (234) 29,482 2,835 1,894 1,037 7,567 1,241 6,071 - 33,690
Less: Earned Revenues (1,849) (1,555) (4) (136) (29) - (3,573)
Net Program Costs (18,052) (1,789) 29,482 2,835 1,890 901 7,567 1,241 6,042 - 30,117
Net Cost of Operations (18,052) (1,789) 29,482 2,835 1,890 901 7,567 1,241 6,260 - 30,335
Adjustments
Changes in Accounting Principles
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - - - -
All Other Funds: - - - - - - - - - - -
Corrections of Errors
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - (5) - - - - - - - - (5)
All Other Funds: 835 - - - - - - - - - 835
Appropriations Used
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - 68 8 6 - - - 7 - 89
All Other Funds: 3,393 - 30,471 2,913 1,916 904 6,231 1,143 7,401 - 54,372
Nonexchange Revenue
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - 3 (1) - - - - - 3 - 5
All Other Funds: - - 1 - - 15 - - 185 - 201
Other
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - - - -
All Other Funds: - - 173 104 37 71 66 24 (475) - -
Imputed Financing
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - 1 - - - - - - - - 1
All Other Funds: 16 - - - - - - - 142 - 158
Other
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - 13 - 13
All Other Funds: (2,063) - - - - - - - (107) - (2,170)
Net Change
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - 1,217 - - - - - - 13 13 1,243
All Other Funds: 20,802 - 59 30 (3) 3 11 - 222 (13) 21,111
120
Required Supplementary Information
Unexpended Appropriations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - 1 3 18 17 - - 5 (364) - (320)
All Other Funds: 871 - 10,378 4,550 4,996 2,272 19,991 3,115 5,262 - 51,435
Beginning Balances 871 1 10,381 4,568 5,013 2,272 19,991 3,120 4,898 - 51,115
Adjustments
Changes in Accounting Principles
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - - - -
All Other Funds: - - - - - - - - - - -
Corrections of Errors
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - (1) 15 - - - - - - - 14
All Other Funds: - - (15) - - - - - - - (15)
Appropriations Transferred-In/Out
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - 80 - - - - - - - 80
All Other Funds: - - 41 (22) - - (1) - (98) - (80)
Appropriations Used
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - (68) (8) (6) - - - (7) - (89)
All Other Funds: (3,393) - (30,471) (2,913) (1,916) (904) (6,231) (1,143) (7,401) - (54,372)
Net Position
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - 21,386 30 - - - - - 884 13 22,313
All Other Funds: 41,097 - 10,241 4,185 5,180 3,444 17,620 2,912 5,183 (13) 89,849
Net Position 41,097 21,386 10,271 4,185 5,180 3,444 17,620 2,912 6,067 - 112,162
121
Required Supplementary Information
Adjustments
Changes in Accounting Principles
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - - - -
All Other Funds: - - - - - - - - - - -
Corrections of Errors
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - (3) - (3)
All Other Funds: 1,371 - - - - - - - - - 1,371
Appropriations Used
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - 39 (1) - - 75 2 - - 115
All Other Funds: 2,206 - 29,245 2,720 1,850 946 7,423 1,210 7,278 - 52,878
Nonexchange Revenue
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - 3 - 3
All Other Funds: - - - - - - - - - - -
Other
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - - - -
All Other Funds: - - 198 116 44 86 69 29 (542) - -
Imputed Financing
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - 1 - 1
All Other Funds: 15 - - - - - - - 49 - 64
Other
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - - - -
All Other Funds: (4,216) - - - - - - - (663) - (4,879)
Net Change
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - 1,789 - - - - - - 10 - 1,799
All Other Funds: 16,499 - - - 4 (413) - - (42) - 16,048
122
Required Supplementary Information
Unexpended Appropriations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - 2 1 17 16 - 91 7 (355) - (221)
All Other Funds: 872 - 10,001 4,767 4,853 2,683 24,366 3,432 5,468 - 56,442
Beginning Balances 872 2 10,002 4,784 4,869 2,683 24,457 3,439 5,113 - 56,221
Adjustments
Changes in Accounting Principles
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - - - -
All Other Funds: - - - - - - - - - - -
Corrections of Errors
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - - - - - - - - - -
All Other Funds: - - 574 - - - - - - - 574
Appropriations Transferred-In/Out
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - 55 - - - - - - - 55
All Other Funds: - - - (16) - - - - (40) - (56)
Appropriations Used
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - - (39) 1 - - (75) (2) - - (115)
All Other Funds: (2,206) - (29,245) (2,720) (1,850) (946) (7,423) (1,210) (7,278) - (52,878)
Net Position
Funds From Dedicated Collections: - 20,175 17 18 16 - - 5 881 - 21,112
All Other Funds: 20,754 - 10,364 4,546 5,000 3,810 19,992 3,115 5,321 - 72,902
Net Position 20,754 20,175 10,381 4,564 5,016 3,810 19,992 3,120 6,202 - 94,014
123
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Period Ending September 2016
Dollars in Millions
124
Change in Obligated Balance
Unpaid Obligations:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 565 353 8,902 4,710 2,536 1,964 12,495 3,184 4,617 39,326 2,485 271 2 2,758 42,084
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations, Start of Year - - - - (5) - - - (3) (8) 3 - - 3 (5)
New Obligations and Upward Adjustments 6,976 220 30,357 2,574 2,137 627 4,866 964 6,821 55,542 50,911 3,613 109 54,633 110,175
Outlays (gross) (6,953) (221) (30,231) (2,860) (1,887) (910) (6,015) (1,154) (7,289) (57,520) (50,286) (3,656) (106) (54,048) (111,568)
Actual Transfers, Unpaid Obligations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (241) (17) (126) (14) (389) (40) (9) (29) (174) (1,039) (463) - - (463) (1,502)
Unpaid Obligations, End of Year (gross) 347 335 8,902 4,410 2,392 1,641 11,337 2,965 3,972 36,301 2,650 228 5 2,883 39,184
Uncollected Payments:
Uncollected Payments, Fed Sources, Brought Forward, Oct 1 (15) - - - - - - - (3) (18) - - (56) (56) (74)
Adjustment to Uncollected Payments, Fed Sources, Start of Year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments, Fed Sources (20) - - - - (1) - - (2) (23) - - 5 5 (18)
Required Supplementary Information
Outlays, Gross (discretionary and mandatory) 6,953 221 30,231 2,860 1,887 910 6,015 1,154 7,289 57,520 50,286 3,656 106 54,048 111,568
Actual Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) (24,991) (3,382) - (1) (1) (369) (1) - (81) (28,826) (29,027) (2,765) (96) (31,888) (60,714)
Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) (18,038) (3,161) 30,231 2,859 1,886 541 6,014 1,154 7,208 28,694 21,259 891 10 22,160 50,854
-
Distributed Offsetting Receipts (2,000) - (5) - - - - - (297) (2,302) - - - - (2,302)
Agency Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) (20,038) (3,161) 30,226 2,859 1,886 541 6,014 1,154 6,911 26,392 21,259 891 10 22,160 48,552
125
Unpaid Obligations:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 587 281 8,865 4,871 2,605 2,303 12,861 3,568 5,146 41,087 2,229 265 17 2,511 43,598
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations, Start of Year - 15 - - - - - - - 15 - - - - 15
New Obligations and Upward Adjustments 15,170 268 29,143 2,522 2,109 666 6,204 848 7,019 63,949 49,673 5,538 59 55,270 119,219
Outlays (gross) (15,142) (202) (28,999) (2,657) (1,904) (962) (6,547) (1,213) (7,383) (65,009) (49,035) (5,532) (59) (54,626) (119,635)
Actual Transfers, Unpaid Obligations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (50) (7) (107) (26) (274) (44) (24) (19) (165) (716) (382) (1) (14) (397) (1,113)
Unpaid Obligations, End of Year (gross) 565 355 8,902 4,710 2,536 1,963 12,494 3,184 4,617 39,326 2,485 270 3 2,758 42,084
Uncollected Payments:
Uncollected Payments, Fed Sources, Brought Forward, Oct 1 (8) - - - - - - - (4) (12) - (2) (55) (57) (69)
Adjustment to Uncollected Payments, Fed Sources, Start of Year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments, Fed Sources (6) - - - - - - - - (6) - 2 (1) 1 (5)
Required Supplementary Information
Outlays, Gross (discretionary and mandatory) 15,142 202 28,999 2,657 1,904 962 6,547 1,213 7,383 65,009 49,035 5,532 59 54,626 119,635
Actual Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) (21,710) (4,358) - - (6) (506) - - (59) (26,639) (38,213) (2,819) (76) (41,108) (67,747)
Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) (6,568) (4,156) 28,999 2,657 1,898 456 6,547 1,213 7,324 38,370 10,822 2,713 (17) 13,518 51,888
-
Distributed Offsetting Receipts (2,797) - - - - - - - (47) (2,844) - - - - (2,844)
Agency Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) (9,365) (4,156) 28,999 2,657 1,898 456 6,547 1,213 7,277 35,526 10,822 2,713 (17) 13,518 49,044