Tue Feb 11 23:32:00 EST 2025
Blog

IAFST Files For Industry NAICS As Order Mills Brace For Investigations

For decades, the Mortgage Field Services Industry has operated without a proper classification under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The professionals who handle occupancy inspections, property securing, lock changes, debris removal, winterizations, and maintenance for foreclosed properties have been forced to operate under misclassified NAICS codes — often lumped into unrelated categories like landscaping, facilities management, or construction. Today, that changed. The International Association of Field Service Technicians (IAFST) has formally filed for an Industry NAICS and the documents are below. The application is located here.

This lack of recognition has led to unfair pay structures, an absence of reliable industry data, and restricted competition, allowing a handful of large corporations to dominate the space while sidelining independent contractors and small businesses. The creation of a dedicated NAICS code, 238360 — Mortgage Field Services — would provide critical protections and economic benefits to the industry’s workforce, ensuring fair compensation, transparent tracking, and an open, competitive marketplace.

One of the most urgent issues facing mortgage field service professionals is stagnant and inconsistent pay rates. Unlike many other trades, field service workers do not have a standardized pay scale, and contractors often operate under non-negotiable, subpar rates dictated by large national companies.

Without a NAICS code, wage data is not properly tracked, making it impossible to establish industry-wide fair pay standards. By contrast, industries with their own NAICS codes (such as plumbing, electrical work, or HVAC services) have structured prevailing wages that ensure fair compensation for labor.

A new NAICS code would:

  • Enable wage standardization by providing economic data to support fair labor rates.
  • Ensure cost-of-living adjustments by allowing government agencies to track earnings and inflation impacts.
  • Prevent underpayment and wage suppression by requiring transparency in contractor payment structures.

Right now, there is no clear way to challenge the low and often delayed payments that plague the industry. Creating a dedicated NAICS classification would allow for government tracking of average pay rates, helping labor advocates push for better compensation.

Another major challenge in mortgage field services is the lack of industry-wide data. Because service providers are misclassified under multiple unrelated NAICS codes, the government does not accurately track:

  • The number of businesses operating in the industry.
  • The total revenue generated by mortgage field services.
  • The number of workers and their earnings.
  • This lack of transparency benefits large corporations while keeping contractors in the dark about industry trends and pay standards.

A new NAICS code would change that by ensuring:

  • Clear reporting on industry size and economic impact.
  • Better wage data for contractors to negotiate fair pay.
  • Proper classification for SBA loan eligibility and small business programs.

Without proper data, field service professionals are excluded from important economic policies and government funding. The new NAICS code would give workers a voice by documenting their contributions to the economy.

The current misclassification of mortgage field services allows a handful of large corporations to control the industry. Without a dedicated NAICS code, federal agencies and banks default to awarding contracts to national firms that claim to represent the industry — while the actual work is performed by independent contractors at unreasonably low rates.

A new NAICS code would level the playing field by:

  • Allowing small businesses to compete for direct contracts instead of being forced to subcontract under low-paying national firms.
  • Enabling industry-specific certifications and business registrations that help independent contractors win work.
  • Encouraging new businesses to enter the market, leading to fairer pricing and competition.

Right now, large corporations take advantage of the ambiguity in NAICS classification to keep contracts locked up among a few key players. A dedicated NAICS code would break this monopoly and allow small businesses to win contracts directly from banks, mortgage servicers, and government agencies.

The mortgage field services industry has existed in the shadows for far too long. The lack of a proper NAICS code has resulted in stagnant wages, hidden industry data, and restricted competition—all of which harm the workers and small businesses that sustain the industry.

Creating NAICS 238360 – Mortgage Field Services & Foreclosure Property Preservation is the logical step toward:

✅ Fair Pay – Wage tracking and industry-wide pay standards.
✅ Transparent Data – Proper classification of economic contributions and labor statistics.
✅ Open Competition – Breaking monopolies and allowing small businesses to thrive.

It’s time for the U.S. Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to recognize mortgage field services as a distinct, essential industry and grant it the classification it deserves.

Workers, business owners, and policymakers must unite to push for this change — because fair pay, transparency, and competition benefit everyone.

Here are the documents submitted to Regulations.gov for the official request for a NAICS,


Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 

Sweeping Legislation Concerns Banks Over REO Payments

The mortgage field services industry, already struggling with stagnating pay and slow reimbursements, now faces another looming threat—uncertainty over federal funding. Financial institutions and U.S. government agencies are reportedly concerned that executive orders issued by the Trump administration could cancel or delay funding, including critical monies used to pay for the management and preservation of Real Estate Owned (REO) foreclosures. This, coupled with the potential privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has many concerned whether or not the new contracts issued for field services will still honor the previous debts owed on the pre-privatization contracts.

For laborers in the mortgage field services industry, these concerns translate to real financial risks. The funding in question often covers essential services such as property inspections, securing vacant homes, maintenance, and code compliance. If government agencies or financial institutions face sudden budget shortfalls, the trickle-down effect could leave independent contractors and small businesses in the industry struggling to get paid.

Mortgage servicers and field service companies rely on timely funding to issue work orders for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. If funding is cut, vendors may see fewer orders, longer payment cycles, or outright cancellations. Many contractors in the field services industry already face 30-90 day payment delays. If government funds backing foreclosure reimbursements are halted, payments could be further delayed or defaulted on altogether.

If funding disruptions slow down the foreclosure process, the overall volume of REO properties needing maintenance may shrink, reducing work opportunities across the industry. Large national servicing companies may not have enough reserves to absorb temporary funding gaps, but even worse, most small contractors and local vendors often operate with tight margins. If payments stop, they may be unable to continue operations.

Many are asking what they might be able to do in order to protect themselves from both a lack of funding from foreclosure asset holders as well as unscrupulous order mills using the chaos to mask their theft.

Diversify Client Base: If most of your work comes from government-backed servicers, consider working with private investors or alternative property preservation contracts to spread financial risk. Foreclosurepedia works directly with Field Service Technicians and Inspectors alike in order to build out new Client bases, ensure that their websites are secure and providing relevant content, as well as ongoing municipal, county, state and federal contract opportunities.

  • Negotiate Faster Payments: Push for quicker payouts, upfront advances, or contractual protections in case of payment delays.
  • If funding disruptions slow down the foreclosure process, the overall volume of REO properties needing maintenance may shrink, reducing work opportunities across the industry. A shift toward privatization may also lead to policy changes that impact foreclosure timelines, making it harder to predict work availability.
  • Monitor Policy Changes: Stay informed about executive orders, HUD funding decisions, and foreclosure policy shifts to anticipate potential work slowdowns.
  • Advocate for Industry Protections: Industry groups and labor associations should push for protections that ensure laborers get paid even if funding disruptions occur.

The Trump administration made repeated efforts to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, arguing that the government’s long-standing conservatorship should end. While this effort has not fully materialized, future executive actions could reignite the push toward privatization. If these institutions become fully privatized, it could have major implications for contractors working on government-backed foreclosure properties:

  • Shift in Contractual Obligations: If private entities take control, they may introduce new bidding structures, stricter compliance measures, and different payment terms that could disadvantage smaller contractors.
  • Elimination of Government-Backed Guarantees: Government oversight currently ensures a level of funding stability. Privatization could introduce cost-cutting measures that reduce work orders or delay payments.
  • Tighter Budget Controls: Private companies are more likely to cut costs aggressively, which may result in lower pay rates for mortgage field services and increased pressure to perform work at reduced fees.
  • Policy Uncertainty: Government-backed institutions follow standardized policies for foreclosures and property preservation. Private institutions may introduce variations in policy that complicate operations for vendors servicing multiple clients.

If you would like to get ahead of the chaos and ensure that your firm continues an upward climb in both work orders and profitability, feel free to reach out to discuss a Retainer with Foreclosurepedia today!

New Secretary of HUD to Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Scott Turner, head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, laid out key priorities, including a push to improve efficiency and privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Turner also aims to ease regulations affecting housing costs, expand development on federal land and continue work focused on opportunity zones, according to the Wall Street Journal. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have long been the government’s . . .

To read the article Subscribe today!

 

 

Sclerotic Industry Software, Antitrust Claims Plague Industry

Fact: One company controls all property preservation software in the Industry. Fact: Two companies control all inspections in the same Industry. In focus, the US Justice Department sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, arguing the tie-up would harm competition. In a complaint filed Thursday, the US said the deal would consolidate the sector from three major players — HPE, Juniper and Cisco — down to two that would control 70% of the market. (HPE’s CEO said the company would defend its planned acquisition). The antitrust suit marks the first brought by the Justice Department under Trump. Building on that, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg, the Federal Trade Commission is probing whether Uber and Lyft illegally coordinated to limit driver pay in New York City. The companies now must turn over information about an agreement with city officials over how drivers are compensated.

There has been no competition in our Industry, from a software point-of-view, for over a decade. In fact, the only thing that has happened is that Verisk bought out all property preservation software used for work order transit and then increased their pricing. The same holds true for the inspections side in that the only two providers, InspectorADE and EZ Inspections. Adding fuel to the fire is the complete control of API access by National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS) members which ensures complete isolation. All of this presents as the classic antitrust model.

If even possible, the more concerning item is that while all NAMFS members received massive pay hikes from FHA, HUD and the VA, pricing across the nation for Labor has remained the same. It is not simply that there have not been price increases over the past 30+ years, it is how each and every NAMFS member pays virtually the same for all services. And in a $1.465 billion dollar a year Industry — that number taken for the inflation adjusted amount cited during an Altisource earnings call — these allegations are not simply outliers. One way that Industry leaders are attempting to address this is through the first ever Petition for NAICS. This would allow the Departments of Labor and Education, in conjunction with the Census Bureau, to closely look at pricing issues, employee misclassification issues, as well as antitrust complaints — all under one NAICS.

NAMFS has never made any bones about meeting both at an annual meeting as well as leadership summits to discuss pricing as well as presenting specific guidance for the Industry. Moreover, though, over the past several years, the former NAMFS President, Matt Zoldowski sold the largest property preservation software platform, Property Preservation Wizard (PPW), to Verisk during his original appointment as NAMFS President. Since then, Verisk has been the largest sponsor of NAMFS conferences. Eric Miller, the decades long NAMFS Executive Director, has also been directly involved with Verisk. Above and beyond the conflicts of interest at play here, it is self evident that NAMFS is completely supportive — and overtly supporting — the actions of Verisk. Building on this, the recent trends of National Order Mills buying up their competition — such as the purchase of Five Brothers, M&M Mortgage, GIS Field Services, and others under the roof of Mortgage Contracting Services, controlled by Littlejohn & Co. — is proof positive that the Federal Trade Commission needs to take an extremely close look at our Industry.

In recent years, the United States has witnessed a surge in corporate consolidation, particularly in industries dominated by technology and software. Companies with significant financial resources have engaged in aggressive acquisition strategies, buying up competitors, startups, and complementary businesses to solidify their market dominance. While mergers and acquisitions can drive innovation and efficiency, they also raise significant antitrust concerns, especially when consolidation leads to reduced competition and higher prices for consumers. This article explores the role of antitrust laws in the U.S., the risks of unchecked consolidation, and the broader implications for consumers and the economy.

Antitrust laws in the United States are designed to promote fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices that harm consumers. The cornerstone of U.S. antitrust policy is the Sherman Act of 1890, which prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade and monopolization. This was followed by the Clayton Act of 1914, which addresses specific anti-competitive practices such as mergers and acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are the primary enforcers of these laws, tasked with reviewing mergers and investigating anticompetitive behavior.

The goal of antitrust regulation is to ensure that no single company or group of companies can dominate a market to the detriment of consumers. When competition thrives, consumers benefit from lower prices, better quality, and more innovation. However, when consolidation occurs unchecked, it can lead to monopolistic control, allowing companies to raise prices, reduce choices, and stifle innovation.

In the tech sector, consolidation has become a defining trend. Large companies, often referred to as “Big Tech,” have used their vast resources to acquire smaller competitors and innovative startups. For example, companies like Google, Facebook (now Meta), Amazon, and Microsoft have made hundreds of acquisitions over the past two decades. While some of these acquisitions have led to new products and services, others have raised red flags among regulators and antitrust advocates. Verisk, specifically, and potentially InspectorADE and EZ Inspections, should they choose to be purchased or consolidate, fit the bill, as well.

One of the most concerning aspects of this consolidation is the “kill zone” effect, where dominant companies have acquired potential competitors before they can grow into significant threats. This practice not only eliminates competition but also discourages innovation, as startups may be incentivized to sell out rather than compete. Over time, this dynamic can lead to a highly concentrated market where a few players control the majority of the industry. This is currently ongoing when looking at the vulture capitalism ongoing and being deployed by firms like Littlejohn & Co.

When a single company or a small group of companies dominates a market, they gain significant pricing power. Without competitive pressure, these firms can raise prices without fear of losing customers. Conversely, they are able to pay far less as there is no competition to determine wage levels. This is particularly problematic in industries where consumers have few alternatives, such as our Industry, software, cloud computing, or social media platforms.

For example, consider a hypothetical scenario where a dominant software company acquires all major competitors in a specific niche, such as project management tools. After consolidating the market, the company could raise subscription fees, knowing that customers have no viable alternatives. This not only harms consumers but also creates barriers to entry for new competitors, further entrenching the dominant firm’s position.

Despite the clear risks of consolidation, antitrust enforcement in the U.S. has faced significant challenges in recent decades. Critics argue that regulators have been too lenient, allowing mergers and acquisitions that have led to increased market concentration. This lax approach has been attributed to a variety of factors, including limited resources, outdated legal frameworks, and a focus on short-term consumer welfare (such as lower prices) rather than long-term market dynamics.

However, there are signs that the tide may be turning. In recent years, the FTC and DOJ have taken a more aggressive stance on antitrust enforcement, particularly in the tech sector. For example, the FTC has filed lawsuits against Facebook and Google, alleging anti-competitive practices and seeking to unwind past acquisitions. These cases signal a renewed focus on preserving competition and preventing monopolistic behavior.

The consequences of unchecked consolidation extend beyond higher prices for consumers. When a few companies dominate an industry, they can also exert significant influence over labor markets, supply chains, and even political processes. For instance, dominant firms may suppress wages by reducing competition for talent or use their market power to dictate terms to suppliers and partners.

Moreover, consolidation can stifle innovation by creating barriers to entry for new players. Startups and small businesses are often the drivers of technological advancement, but they may struggle to compete in a market dominated by a few large firms. This dynamic can lead to a stagnation of ideas and a slowdown in economic growth.

To address the challenges posed by consolidation, policymakers and regulators must take a proactive approach to antitrust enforcement. This includes updating legal frameworks to reflect the realities of the digital economy, increasing funding for enforcement agencies, and adopting a broader definition of consumer welfare that considers long-term market health. One potential solution is to impose stricter scrutiny on mergers and acquisitions, particularly those involving dominant firms and potential competitors. Regulators could also explore structural remedies, such as breaking up companies that have become too powerful or imposing conditions on mergers to preserve competition.

Additionally, there is a growing call for legislative action to modernize antitrust laws. Proposals such as the American Innovation and Choice Online Act aim to prevent dominant platforms from favoring their own products and services over those of competitors. These efforts could help level the playing field and promote a more competitive marketplace.

The rise of consolidation in our Industry, particularly in the tech sector, inspections, and field services, poses significant risks to competition, innovation, and consumer welfare. While antitrust laws provide a framework for addressing these issues, enforcement has often fallen short in recent decades. As dominant companies continue to acquire competitors and raise prices, it is imperative that regulators, policymakers, and the public take action to preserve a fair and competitive economy. By strengthening antitrust enforcement and modernizing legal frameworks, the U.S. can ensure that markets remain dynamic, innovative, and beneficial for all.

Glut of New Homes, $600 Billion Loss in One Day in AI, and Industry Subpoenas Go Out

71 percent of all US real estate agents did not sell an asset in 2024. That is not good for an industry with over 1.5 million real estate agents and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) which has 900 board members in need of the dues paid. In fact, the NAR has been plagued by blackmail, sexual harassment, and a multitude of scandals recently. Moreover, though, the Justice Department has been chipping away at the NAR cronyism, in full force, over the past year.

To read the article Subscribe today!