Creating a Culture of Compliance

Everywhere we turn, there is compliance, compliance,
and more compliance required across the board.[i]
Donald J. Frommeyer, CRMS
President of NAMB

The ancient Greek philosophers knew the fundamental distinction between theory and practice. For them “theory” (or theoria) differed from “practice” (or praxis) in that the former meant examining things and the latter meant doing things! In other words, theory was a sort of spectators’ sport, while practice was playing the sport itself. Advanced mathematics is somewhat similar: there is pure (or theoretical) mathematics and then there is applied mathematics. Some theories remain theories forever, and others are extrapolated into practice. So, as it happens, some cogent theories simply do not need to have applied applications to be cohesive theories. Practical applications, however, must be experimentally valid all of the time.

The requirements of implementing a theory can be daunting, especially when the consequences of its practical applications are not sufficiently understood. To put a fine point on this observation: what may seem perfectly acceptable in theory can be entirely unacceptable in practice. Thus, some things are possible theoretically and other things are not possible practically. In compliance, I have learned to approach the notion of something being ‘theoretically possible’ with extreme caution!

So, given the challenges of regulations (theories) and compliance requirements (practices), (1) how should a financial institution accomplish evaluations of its loan origination risks and, most importantly, (2) how to go about embedding such assessments into a culture of compliance? In this article, I am going to provide ways and means by which the management of a financial institution will be able to create a culture of compliance that serves as the foundation upon which to manage risk associated with mortgage loan originations. I will provide an extensive set of questions, the answers to which should call forth the ways and means to establish compliance solutions.*

If you have ten thousand regulations,
you destroy all respect for the law.
Winston Churchill

So, how to create a culture of compliance?

Begin at the beginning!

When was the last time that a risk assessment was performed to identify all the loan products, which departments were affected in originating them, and what staff are responsible to effectuate the origination? That is where to begin. Residential mortgage lenders and originators may offer some, or all, of the loan products subject to the Ability-to-Repay (ATR) and Qualified Mortgage (QM) rule promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau). But originating those loan products starts with identifying the loan flow process itself.

Furthermore, any new origination requirements will affect a number of parts of business systems and processes. For instance, a very short list of affected areas are the forms and processes used to communicate internally and externally that are subject to verification requirements; systems and processes used to underwrite loans must be considered; secondary marketing and servicing processes and systems need risk evaluation metrics, especially with respect to ATR provisions related to the refinancing of non-standard loans into a standard loans.

Specifically, are the various integrated processes and procedures set up to identify loans on the transaction systems with their definitional status under such regulations as the ATR and QM rule, which may involve creating new data element(s) within those very processing systems? Likewise, if the loan is a QM, is a formal consideration undertaken to determine levels of liability exposure and liability protection that a loan is receiving as it moves through the origination process?

To insure peace of mind
ignore the rules and regulations.  

George Ade

The American humorist, George Ade, may have found a way to peace of mind by ignoring rules and regulations. Perhaps he intuitively knew something about the stress involved in originating residential mortgage loans! If you have problems with rules and regulations, I suggest you choose another line of work, for happiness will forever elude you.

Consider this: the ATR and QM rule is just one component of the Bureau’s Dodd-Frank Act Title XIV rulemakings! Here are a few other rules that are now the law of the land:

• 2013 HOEPA Rule
• ECOA Valuations Rule
• TILA Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Appraisal Rule
• Loan Originator Rule
• RESPA and TILA Mortgage Servicing Rules
• TILA Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Escrow Rule

Some of these rules are directly and indirectly intersected, interlocked, overlapped, interfaced, and cross-tabulated; they are correlated, tabularized and re-tabularized, re-ordered, enumerated and re-enumerated, re-codified, and, generally, comprehensively systematized.[ii] Each of these rules affects one or more aspects of the loan origination process, organizational structure, and risk exposure. So maybe the great American humorist was on to something!

Nevertheless, if we are going to play, we will have to play within the rules. This means not only considering the compliance implications internally but also the interaction between the financial institution and third-parties upon which the institution relies for verifications, credit and other borrower information, disclosures, underwriting software, compliance and quality-control systems and processes, records management. Notwithstanding the foregoing third-parties, also to be considered are software providers, various vendors, and business partners. Training may also be necessary for these service providers and agents!

All the starting-point reviews in the world will lead to little or no action throughout an organization where certain training needs are not being met. Therefore, from the outset, it is critical to consider what training will be necessary for loan officers, secondary marketing, processing, compliance, and quality control personnel. Any staff involved at critical junctures in the loan flow process should receive training, certainly anyone who approves, processes, or monitors credit transactions.

Webinar: New Year, New Rules

Brokers Compliance Group is the Exclusive Compliance Provider of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) and an affiliate of Lenders Compliance Group.

In cooperation with NAMB, we will be providing a quarterly webinar series in 2014.

Each webinar will be devoted to an intense review of important regulatory compliance matters.

• If you are a client of the Lenders Compliance Group of companies, you are entitled to register for FREE.
• Each attendee must individually register.
• NAMB members receive special pricing.
• Non-members of NAMB and non-clients of ours may also register for a small fee.

Our first webinar in the series will be presented on January 30, 2014, at 2PM-EST. Because space is filling up quickly, due to announcements by NAMB and media organizations, we suggest you register as soon as possible.

We are pleased to offer this webinar to our valued clients and colleagues!

Regards,

Jonathan Foxx
President & Managing Director

________________________________________________

WEBINAR OVERVIEW

________________________________________________

DESCRIPTION

New Year, New Rules - Understanding and Implementing

Thursday, January 30, 2014 at 2PM-EST

Webinar Topics:

• How do the Ability-to-Repay (ATR) requirements affect my business?

• Qualified Mortgage (QM) and the inconsistent impact on lenders, brokers, and mortgage loan originators

• Obstacles and opportunities in Loan Officer Compensation amendments

• Lending in the new HOEPA requirements

• Appraisals: Latest rules affecting ECOA and Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans

In this 90-minute session, we'll discuss the regulatory compliance requirements that you need to implement right away.

________________________________________________

The Mini-Correspondent Channel: Pros and Cons

Several years ago, our firm, Lenders Compliance Group, provided unique guidance to the mortgage division of a bank.* The bank wished to build a special origination platform for its mortgage brokers. At that time, the prevailing regulations required disclosure of the Yield Spread Premium (YSP), and the bank wanted to give their Third Party Originators (TPOs) an opportunity to close in their own name, with their own funds, and, among other things, by-pass disclosure of the YSP. In building the platform for the bank, many features were needed to implement these relationships in accordance with federal and state law, as well as safety and soundness metrics. This all took place at a time when a 3% fee cap on broker revenue was not even a glimmer in the eyes of legislators or regulators, and Elizabeth Warren[i] had yet to promote the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

As Shakespeare wrote in The Tempest, “What’s past is prologue.”

Since the early part of this year, many lenders are building a new origination channel. The proximate cause for the new channel is found in the Final Rule pertaining to the Ability-to-Repay guidelines and the requirements of a Qualified Mortgage (Rule).[ii]

The new channel is meant specifically for brokers who hope to by-pass a 3% cap on loan amounts above $100,000, the new CFPB requirement that substantially and principally affects broker TPOs.[iii] The loans covered by the Rule are first lien and junior lien mortgage loans that are closed-end mortgage loans secured by a dwelling, including home purchase, refinance and home equity loans. (Excluded loans are HELOCs; Timeshares; Reverses; Bridges with a term of 12 months or less and loans to purchase a new dwelling where the consumer plans to sell another dwelling within 12 months; Vacant Lot loans; Loan Modifications not subject to the "refinancing" provisions under TILA; and Business Loans.)[iv]

In particular, many brokers usually seek to charge fees between 2% and 3% per loan transaction; however, as of January 10, 2014,[v] any excess above 3% in total points and fees virtually guarantees that such loans, originated by brokers, will not be eligible for treatment as a Qualified Mortgage (QM). The result of the Final Rule and specifically the 3% cap is to create an incentive for many brokers to morph into a new kind of correspondent, termed the “Mini-Correspondent.” The new origination channel developed by some wholesale lenders is aptly called the “Mini-Correspondent Channel.”

One of us, Jonathan Foxx, has written extensively – both in magazine articles and newsletters – about the Ability-to-Repay guidelines (ATR), the Qualified Mortgage, and the Non-Qualified Mortgage (viz., which he has titled the “NQM”). For additional details and guidance, please read those publications.[vi]

In this article, we are going to explore two interrelated issues. First, we will discuss the 3% cap, its implementation and placement within the QM framework, and the way it affects the originations of the mortgage broker. To do that, we will provide the QM framework into which the 3% cap is situated. Secondly, we will discuss the structure of and certain requirements relating to a mini-correspondent TPO. Bear in mind that this new type of TPO is taking place in a dynamic regulatory environment and loan origination market; therefore, aspects of our observations may change, due to a regulatory response, or other material factors, that pertain to originating loans through this new channel. 

Two Classes of Qualified Mortgages

Essentially, the Rule creates two types of QMs, one of which provides a safe harbor from liability and another which does not provide a safe harbor, but does offer a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the Rule. Obviously, the former is preferred, though the latter is not without its merits.

The safe harbor is only available if the creditor complies with all aspects of the Rule, including, at minimum, all the ATR guidelines, and where the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) on a first lien loan must be within 1.5 percentage points of the “average prime offer rate” (APOR) as of the date the interest rate is set (viz., the APR on a junior lien must be within 3.5 percentage points of the APOR).[vii] If the APR threshold is exceeded, the creditor has a rebuttable presumption of compliance.

The distinction between the safe harbor and rebuttable presumption is very significant. With the safe harbor, a lender obtains a conclusive presumption of compliance and may refute a claim that it violated the Rule, such as not complying with the ATR guidelines. But if the lender obtains only a rebuttable presumption of compliance, a claim can be litigated on the basis of a creditor not making a “reasonable” and “good faith” determination of the borrower’s ability to repay, irrespective of a lender’s complying fully with various aspects of the Rule, such as the ATR guidelines.

The ATR test promulgated by the Rule consists of eight factors. Neither the safe harbor nor the rebuttable presumption is available to a lender solely because a loan is underwritten to the ATR test’s guidelines. The ATR factors require the lender to underwrite and verify (1) current or reasonably expected income or assets, other than the value of the dwelling, (2) current employment status (viz., if the creditor is relying on employment income), (3) monthly payment, (4) monthly payment on any “simultaneous loan” of which the creditor is (or should be) aware, (5) mortgage-related obligations, (6) current debt obligations (including alimony, palimony, and child support), (7) monthly Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio or residual income, and (8) borrower credit history. It should be noted that the ATR test itself does not place limits on points and fees. 

Qualified Mortgage and the 3% Cap

As mentioned above, a QM with an APR that does not exceed the APOR thresholds receives a safe harbor from liability (i.e., compliance with the ATR guidelines). If the APOR thresholds are exceeded, this means that the loan is a higher-priced QM, and, as such, receives the rebuttable presumption of compliance. In effect, the two classes of QM constitute a prime and non-prime market, with the prime entitled to safe harbor and the non-prime entitled to a rebuttable presumption.[viii]

But there are several challenges that a lender must overcome in order to use the safe harbor defense, one of which is the 3% cap. The Rule excludes from the points and fees 3% cap any compensation paid, per transaction, by a mortgage broker to an employee of the mortgage broker and compensation paid by a creditor to its loan officers. Compensation paid by a creditor to a loan originator other than an employee of the creditor (i.e., paid to a broker by a creditor on a lender paid transaction) is included in the 3% cap along with other upfront charges paid by the consumer to the creditor or its affiliates.[ix] Furthermore, the 3% cap includes certain fees paid to affiliates, mortgage originator compensation paid directly or indirectly by the consumer, and amounts imposed by secondary market investors and passed through to borrowers to compensate for credit risk. When these "points and fees" are factored into the loan origination costs, many loans will exceed the 3% limit.[x] 

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

Loan Originator Compensation

____________________________________________________

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

Loan Originator Compensation: Past is Prologue - Part I

In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law
produces not only one effect, but a series of effects.
Of these effects, the first alone is immediate;
it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen.
The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen;
we are fortunate if we foresee them.
What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen[i]
Frédéric Bastiat

Since April 6, 2011, mortgage loan originators (MLOs) have struggled to comply with the many requirements imposed on them by the MLO compensation provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA),[ii] as amended by Title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank). That date was the compliance effective date.[iii] Prior to that date, however, there were considerable and persistent efforts made to postpone its implementation.

I tracked the burgeoning protests and litigation in a series of articles[iv] and newsletters.[v] Associations resisted these TILA revisions on behalf of their membership. The National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) and the National Association of Independent Housing Professionals (NAIHP) sued the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (FRB). Amicus briefs were filed. Many members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, also protested aspects of the new MLO compensation requirements. All for naught!*

April 6, 2011 arrived. Resistance was futile!

The FRB had issued final rulemaking and official staff commentary with respect to the loan originator compensation rules and anti-steering provisions, but further guidance came to a virtual full stop on January 26, 2011, when the FRB issued its Compliance Guide for Small Entities on Loan Originator Compensation and Steering.[vi] After that, the FRB offered some conference calls, a webinar – which ostensibly cleared up some confusion, while causing other confusion – and provided occasional updates of the oral, rather than the written, official variety.

In the meantime, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) received its “enumerated authorities” on July 21, 2011. From that date forward, the CFPB was in charge of promulgating and administering these compensation guidelines.

And on October 6, 2011 - exactly six months to the day when the rule became effective - the first examination guidelines for loan originator compensation were promulgated.[vii] In the State Nondepository Examiner Guidelines for Regulation Z - Loan Originator Compensation Rule, issued by the Multi-State Mortgage Committee (MMC),[viii] we were given a pretty good idea of the direction that federal and state regulators would be taking in their regulatory examinations for loan originator compensation.[ix]

For the most part, my firm’s clients were prepared for implementation of the compensation rule, but we spent hundreds of hours preparing them for it, consisting of many conferences and meetings, which included very comprehensive reviews of employment agreements, compensation plans, disclosures, policies and procedures, and many other details, both logistical and systemic.

Inevitably, I felt mortgage loan originators needed more information than was readily available. So, we consolidated our knowledgebase and offered the FAQs Outline - Loan Originator Compensation, a compendium of questions and answers about the MLO compensation requirements, first published on March 21, 2011 with 142 FAQs and 35 pages. About a year later, after 20 updates, the FAQs Outline was up to 450 FAQs and 147 pages![x]

In this article, the first in a two-part series, I will consider the recent CFPB proposal, issued on August 17, 2012, which contains certain proposed rules governing mortgage loan originations, especially relating to the MLO compensation guidelines in Regulation Z, the implementing regulation of TILA. Comments for this proposal are due by October 16, 2012.[xi]

In the second part of this series, I will explore these proposals in considerable depth, specifically their clarification of and expansion on existing regulations governing MLO compensation and qualifications.

The CFPB does plan to implement new laws, including a restriction on the payment of upfront discount points, origination points, and fees on most mortgage loan transactions. For this reason, I will conclude this article with a brief, generic outline of certain proposals. To some extent, these new proposals exemplify the hurly-burly, roller-coaster ride we’ve been jaunting about on, in the on-going, elusive quest to implement the MLO compensation rule.

Small Business Review Panel

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one:
the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect;
the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen
and those effects that must be foreseen.
What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen[xii]
Frédéric Bastiat

The CFPB is required to certify that a proposed rule will not have a significant, adverse, economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.[xiii] The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) provides the basis for a review, inasmuch as, among other things, “small businesses bear a disproportionate share of regulatory costs and burdens.”[xiv] In order to comply with this requirement, the CFPB convened and chaired a Small Business Review Panel to consider the impact of the proposal and obtain feedback from representatives of the small entities that would be subject to the rule. When preparing the proposed rule and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the CFPB is expected to consider this panel’s findings.

The panel consisted of representatives from the CFPB, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).[xv] On the panel were so-called small entity representatives (SERs), individuals who represent the business entities that would be subject to the CFPB’s proposal.[xvi] On July 11, 2012, the panel issued its report.[xvii]

Here are certain, salient topics that were reviewed by the panel:

• Payment of Discount Points
• Payment of Origination Points and Fees in Creditor-Paid Compensation
• Payment of Origination Points and Fees in Brokerage-Paid Compensation
• MLO Retirement Plans, Profit-Sharing, and Bonuses
• Pricing Concessions and Point Banks
• MLO Qualification and Training Requirements

Let us now consider the panel’s suggestions, concerns, resolutions, and recommendations.