BROKERS COMPLIANCE GROUP®

AARMR | ABA | ACAMS | ALTA | ARMCP | IAPP | IIA | MBA | MERS® | MISMO | NAMB

Showing posts with label Ability to Repay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ability to Repay. Show all posts

Friday, August 9, 2013

Revolving Door Regulators

Senator yesterday. Lobbyist today.

Representative yesterday. CEO today.

Cabinet level appointee yesterday. Bank Chairperson today.

Government Agency Director yesterday. Law firm senior partner today.

CFPB Regulator yesterday. Competitor today.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE
The Inside-Outside Gambit
The Four Horsemen
A Business Model for Former Regulators
Partners in Business
Making a Market in Non-QM
Timeline
What did they know, and when did they know it?
Extinguishing the Fire
Library
_______________________________________________________________________
The Inside-Outside Gambit
There are many forms of corruption. Perhaps the most pernicious is where an elected or duly appointed representative of the citizenry leaves office to use the sloughed off position for financial gain in the private sector.

Let's set up a definition for such (mostly unregulated) behavior. I will give it a phrase: "inside-outside gambits."

What is an inside-outside gambit? It is the use of information obtained in the course of a former governmental position by an official for financial gain, directly or indirectly, soon or immediately after leaving government employment in that position. Such information includes contacts with decision-makers in the government; providing information about proprietary conversations leading up to the promulgating of laws, rules, and regulations; access to insiders and knowledge of their views; navigating the systemic and organizational structure; non-public facts regarding the governmental plans or condition that could provide a financial advantage. Note that I use the phrase "inside-outside," not "insider trading."

I am not talking about a situation where there is the illegal trading of a public company's stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) by individuals with access to non-public information about the subject company (such trading being illegal).

However, the effect of “inside-outside gambit” and “insider trading” is practically the same: these strategies lead to an unfair, usually economic, advantage.

A basic concept of law is that an injury must be sustained by a plaintiff. Broadly speaking, no injury, no case.

So who is harmed when an equity trader uses inside information for personal financial benefit? The public, of course. Certainly, that part of the public that invests in the stock market, relying on rules, regulations, and laws to be impartially applied, with equal access to all. And who is harmed when a former government official uses inside information for personal financial benefit almost immediately after being employed in the government position. Of course, the public. Certainly, that part of the public that relies on rules, regulations, and laws to be impartially applied, with equal access to all.

How about when regulators in the most powerful agency that regulates the origination of residential mortgage loans, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), leave that agency and start a mortgage company soon after leaving the CFPB, to compete or partner with mortgage companies?

When Thomas Jefferson advocated that legislators should have term limits in order to prompt the return to private life in order to live under the rules they promulgated, somehow I don't think this is what he had in mind.

In a letter of 1776, Jefferson wrote:
[His] "reason for fixing them [elected representatives] in office for a term of years rather than for life was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governor, which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget."
In other words, Jefferson viewed public service as a privilege. He fully expected government officials to return to private life and live under the laws they passed. I quite doubt that he viewed such a return to be a means for an ex-official’s self-enrichment, by utilizing public service to exploit – or even appear to exploit - the very laws promulgated by the ex-official.

_______________________________________________________________________
The Four Horsemen
On July 31, 2013, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on Financial Services sent an eight page Congressional letter (Letter) to Richard Cordray, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Signed by a bi-partisan group of Representatives, it expressed concern about the recent departure from the CFPB of four high level officials. The Letter forms the basis of further inquiries by the Committees. Noting a news report, the Representatives indicated it appears that certain officials "have left the CFPB in order to profit from rules they helped create."

Who are these individuals? What were their former CFPB positions?

First, there is Raj Date, former Deputy Director of the CFPB, who left the CFPB on January 31, 2013, shortly after a whole set of Final Rules were issued. (Of course, he gave the unimaginatively standard reason: to spend more time with this family.) Yet a month and a half later he incorporated an "advisory and investment firm,"Fenway Summer LLC" (Fenway), which focuses "on those borrowers who do not meet the standards for 'qualified mortgages' as set by the CFPB under rules." If you would like to know more about this new firm, you can visit its website at http://www.fenwaysummer.com. (Website)

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Loan Originator Compensation: New Rules

On January 24, 2013, as the last of the Final Rules of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rolled out, I offered an outline of all of them, entitled "CFPB's Gang of Seven (Final Rules)".

I listed them in order of issuance, as follows:

1. Ability-to-Repay (ATR)
2. High-Cost Mortgage (HCM)
3. Escrow
4. Servicing
5. Appraisals for High-Risk Mortgages
6. Copies of Appraisals
7. Mortgage Loan Originator Compensation

Having come through the last two months responding to numerous questions about these Final Rules, I have been able to cobble together some of the most salient questions, regulatory features, and concerns that our clients have expressed about them. And when I have spoken to the media types, it seems that they also have a set of questions and interests that are not being fully addressed in the current dialogue. Of abiding interest is the change relating to loan originator compensation. 

With that in mind, I want to provide a brief outline of some loan originator compensation issues, offering additional details garnered from two months in the trenches working through these regulatory issues on behalf of our clients. From time to time, I will have more to discuss about many regulatory changes anticipated in 2013 and 2014. I am going to conduct this review topic by topic, rather than just as specific regulations subject to a final rulemaking. 

____________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE
Terms and Conditions
Retirement Plans
Factors and Proxies
Dual Compensation
Non-loan Originations Services
Points and Fees
Loan Originator Qualifications
Mandatory Arbitration Clause
Single Premium Insurance
Record Retention Requirements
____________________________________________________

Terms and Conditions

By now, there is nary a residential mortgage lender or originator that does not know that, under Regulation Z, loan originator compensation is prohibited from being based upon the terms and conditions of a mortgage loan transaction. 

The CFPB has provided new nomenclature for the terminology "transaction terms and conditions," without much changing the prohibition and certain exceptions to the standing rule. The new terminology is "term of a transaction," but now with the clarified meaning that term of a transaction means to include "any right or obligation of the parties to a credit transaction." 

The usual cast of regulatory prohibitions continue in force. For instance, loan originator compensation is still prohibited from being based on such things as the interest rate of a loan, or upon the inclusion of additional fees or charges for products or services provided by other parties to the transaction. 

And the usual cast of regulatory identifiers of a term of a transaction continue in force. Thus, fees or charges are a term of the transaction if they must be disclosed in the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) or HUD-1 or HUD-1A Settlement Statement (HUD-1). That obviously means to include loan originator or creditor fees or charges for the credit transaction or for a product or service provided by the loan originator or creditor that is related to the extension of credit; and it also means those fees or charges of other parties for any product or service required by the lender as a condition of the extension of credit. Keep in mind, however, that just because a fee or charge is stated on the HUD-1 does not in itself make the fee or charge a term of the transaction.

One rather controversial area involves the off-setting of compensation due to increased costs. The standing rule has provided that loan originator compensation is prohibited from being reduced in response to a change in the transaction terms. This has caused lenders all manner of frustration, not to mention loss of revenues and diminished profits. Yet, the new rule would allow compensation to be reduced in order to offset unexpected increases to estimated settlement costs, otherwise known as "unforeseen circumstances." What is a circumstance that is unforeseen? The imagination reels! But since the CFPB has offered no formal guidance to delineate very specifically what may or may not be an unexpected event, the lender must be extremely careful not to enter these dark waters too briskly.

____________________________________________________

Retirement Plans

Profits may be used toward contributions to tax advantaged retirement plans. The important feature is to ensure that such contributions are not be based on the terms of the individual loan originator’s transactions. Non-deferred, profit based compensation plans - such as bonus pools and profit-sharing plans - is permissible. However, any such payments (1) must ensure that compensation is not directly or indirectly based on the terms of the individual loan originator’s transactions, and (2) either the compensation under the plan does not exceed 10 percent of the loan originator’s total compensation for the applicable period or the loan originator was an originator for no more than 10 transactions during the preceding 12 months. 

Whatever the choice, the entity involved must ensure that payments do not include bonuses, awards, trips, or other 'incentive' products or services.

____________________________________________________

Factors and Proxies

Although the standing rule provides that loan originator compensation may not be dependent upon a factor that is a “proxy” for what would otherwise be considered a term of a loan transaction, there is clarification now that a factor is a term of a loan transaction “proxy” if it meets these two criteria: (1) the factor varies with a transaction term over a significant number of transactions, and (2) the loan originator, directly or indirectly, has the ability to add, reduce, or change the factor when originating the loan or credit.

____________________________________________________

Dual Compensation

There is no change to the prohibition against dual compensation. As by now everyone knows, a loan originator may not be compensated by both the creditor and the consumer. However, mortgage brokers are permitted to pay commissions to their employees and contract agents, provided that these commissions are not based upon the term of a transaction.

____________________________________________________

Non-loan Originations Services

Any amounts received by an origination entity or mortgage broker entity - that is, a lender or brokerage - or its affiliates for activities that are not related to loan originations are not deemed to be compensation. This means that compensation does not include a payment received by such an entity (or its affiliate) for bona fide and reasonable charges for services it performs that are not related to loan originations, and by a lender or brokerage for bona fide and reasonable charges for services that are not loan origination activities when those amounts are not retained by the loan originator but are paid to the lender or its affiliate, or the brokerage or its affiliate.

____________________________________________________

Points and Fees

The CFPB initially proposed a rule in August 2012 that set forth an exemption for the upfront points and fees prohibition. This weird creature of a loan product was called the "zero-zero alternative." If the borrower qualified for it, the lender had to offer it as an alternative loan product.

Lenders opposed the zero-zero and the CFPB then provided a complete exemption, under which a lender may impose points and fees on a consumer where the lender pays compensation to a loan originator - as long as the consumer does not also pay a loan originator.

But is this exemption the unequivocal law of the land? Not really! The CFPB actually reserved to itself the right to amend the exemption after it has conducted additional research on this matter.

____________________________________________________

Loan Originator Qualifications

The SAFE Act, Dodd-Frank, and applicable state law govern all mortgage loan originating entities to make certain that their loan originator employees and agents are either appropriately licensed or registered. Banks and certain nonprofit entities are required to ensure that their registered loan originators meet character and background standards essentially similar to those established under the SAFE Act for licensed loan originators. 

Therefore, registered loan originators are subject to the same rules regarding criminal background checks, credit reporting, and Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) checks as licensed loan originators. Registered loan originators must receive training on federal and state law requirements that apply to loan origination activities.

The CFPB provides more parameters for the thresholds pertaining to  background checks, such as when a criminal conviction will disqualify an individual from being a loan originator and when a criminal background or credit check is mandatory.

There is a clarification to where the loan originator's NMLS unique identifier is to be included on loan documents, such as the requirement for it to be placed on the credit application, note, or loan contract, and security instrument. The unique identifier, however, does not have to be stated on the HUD-1 or Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures.

____________________________________________________

Mandatory Arbitration Clause
 
Effective June 1, 2013, there is a prohibition against any loan contract or other agreement related to a consumer residential mortgage or home equity transaction from including or requiring mandatory arbitration of disputes. This prohibition does permit the parties to agree to arbitration once a dispute commences. 

Specifically prohibited are contract or loan agreement provisions that would bar or limit a consumer from seeking relief in court for any claimed violation of federal law, and interpretations of provisions of loan documents which would bar a consumer from bringing a claim in court in connection with any alleged violation of federal law.

____________________________________________________

Single Premium Insurance

Premiums or fees for credit life insurance and similar products may not be financed in connection with a consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling. Credit insurance may only be paid on a monthly basis.

____________________________________________________

Record Retention Requirements

As with nearly all regulatory mandates, it is important to retain records. Given the ability to keep documents in an electronic format, many (but not all) records can be kept permanently in that format. Nevertheless, the CFPB has directed residential mortgage lenders and originators to maintain records related to loan originator compensation for a period of at least three years after the date of the compensation payment. Documents to retain would surely include, but not be limited to, compensation agreements with loan originators as well as all payments made to the loan originators.

____________________________________________________

Library

Law Library Image

Loan Originator Compensation

____________________________________________________
*Jonathan Foxx is the President & Managing Director of Lenders Compliance Group