CFPB Forum - Participants

CFPB Forum is the online website and discussion forum for news and views regarding the CFPB.

CFPB Forum has a Group on LinkedIn.

CFPB Forum is not associated or affiliated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).*


POWERED BY: LENDERS COMPLIANCE GROUP

Friday, December 9, 2011

CFPB Issues Consumer Fraud Alert

SIGTARP (Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program), CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and the Treasury (U.S. Department of the Treasury) have formed a joint task force to combat Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) mortgage modification scams. 

HAMP is a foreclosure prevention program funded by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The task force released a Consumer Fraud Alert (Alert) on December 1, 2011, entitled Tips for Avoiding Mortgage Modification Scams.

In this Newsletter

Purpose of Joint Task Force
Consumer Fraud Alert - Advice
Library


Purpose of Joint Task Force

SIGTARP, the CFPB, and Treasury have put together this partnership in order to protect taxpayers by investigating and shutting down these scams and by providing education programs to vulnerable homeowners. The aforementioned Alert is meant to protect homeowners from HAMP-related mortgage modification scams. The Alert will also be provided directly to homeowners who are eligible for HAMP.

Investigations will include mortgage modification schemes, among other things, in which companies charge homeowners a fee in exchange for false promises of lowering the homeowner's mortgage debt or payments through HAMP. For our other Newsletters that address mortgage fraud, please visit our publications Library.

Consumer Fraud Alert – Advice

The following outline, addressed to consumers, provides the task force's advice to homeowners, with respect to being aware of con artists and scams that promise to save their homes and lower their mortgage debt or payments:
  • You can apply to the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) on your own or with free help from a housing counselor approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Applying to the program is always FREE.
  • For more information on how to apply, call the Homeowner's HOPE™ Hotline at 1-888-995-HOPE (1-888-995-4673). 
  • Only your mortgage servicer has discretion to grant a loan modification. Therefore, no third party can guarantee or pre-approve your HAMP mortgage modification application.
  • Beware of anyone seeking to charge you in advance for mortgage modification services - in most cases, charging fees in advance for a mortgage modification is illegal.
  • Paying a third party to assist with your HAMP application does not improve your likelihood of receiving a mortgage modification. Accordingly, beware of individuals or companies that ask you for payment and tout success rates or claim to be "experts" in HAMP.
  • If an individual or company claims to be affiliated with HAMP or displays a seal or logo representing the U.S. government in correspondence or on the Web, you should check the connection by calling the Homeowner's HOPE™ Hotline.
  • Beware of individuals or companies that offer money-back guarantees.
  • Beware of individuals or companies that advise you as a homeowner to stop making your mortgage payments or to not contact your mortgage servicer.
Library

Law Library Image
SIGTARP, CFPB, Treasury
   
Tips for Avoiding Mortgage Modification Scams  
Consumer Fraud Alert  

December 1, 2011

Friday, November 18, 2011

Appraisal Institute: Seeks Clarity in Settlement Disclosure Form

On November 16, 2011, the Appraisal Institute, in a joint letter with the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, asked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to separate appraisal fees from administration and processing fees on the settlement forms that consumers receive when purchasing a home.

We have been following the CFPB’s development of the new mortgage disclosure form as its has been updated through several reviews. The purpose of the new form – which will consolidate both the Good Faith Estimate and the Truth in Lending Disclosure – is to inform consumers regarding the charges assessed in processing mortgage loans. 

However, the CFPB’s proposed revisions to the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, now called the Settlement Disclosure Form (SDF), is now at issue. In the letter, the Appraisal Institute expresses its opposition to the proposed SDF released for public comment by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on November 11, 2011.

Outline

The following bulleted outline is the Appraisal Institute’s position:

  • The CFPB has proposed two versions of the new SDF, both of which continue to bundle appraisal fees with fees paid to appraisal management companies.
  • The Dodd-Frank Act authorized separation of appraisal and appraisal management fees, and doing so would fully inform borrowers of actual costs paid.
  • There is no consumer benefit with continuing to bundle two separate services and not fully disclosing such information to borrowers.
  • Thus: the CFPB should revise these forms with a separate line for Appraisal Management (or management fees in total) as required by  Dodd-Frank Act.
  • Consumers deserve to know who is providing services relative to their loan and how much was paid.
  • Therefore:
    • Itemization is needed, among other things: so that the consumer knows the level of service provided by the appraiser; to assure that the consumer is not misled to believe that a more thorough appraisal analysis was performed.
    • Itemization is warranted because: consumers deserve to know who is providing services relative to their loan and how much was paid.
    • Itemized prevents, among other things: manipulation of price versus service, which is consistent with the goal of disclosure and is clearly a consumer service.
The Dodd-Frank Act does authorize the CFPB to separate appraisal and appraisal management fees to consumers on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, the standard form used in the United States to itemize services and fees charged to the borrower by the lender or broker when applying for a loan for the purpose of purchasing or refinancing real estate. 

However, the proposed form issued for comment by the CFPB still combines appraisal and appraisal management fees. A “Management fee” is the fee charged by an appraisal management company (AMC) for administrative services, and an “appraisal fee” refers to the actual cost of the appraisal itself. 

Bundling
 
The fact is, consumers are now paying for appraisal management company fees through the appraisal line of the HUD-1. Indeed, recent consumer research indicates that consumers are paying higher costs for appraisal fees as reported on the Appraisal line of the HUD-1

Traditionally, appraisal management fees were allocated as part of loan processing or administration fees or through the interest rate. But this has changed over the years, as more lenders have outsourced appraisal functions to third party management companies. 

This was enabled by interpretations of the Real Estate Settlements Procedures Act (RESPA) - the foundation of which date back to the origins of the HUD-1 in 1974, prior to the existence of the appraisal management business model. The current arrangement allows the bundling of appraisal and appraisal management expenses when appraisal management companies are used. 

In their letter to the CFPB, the Appraisal Institute and the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers cited recent research from the National Association of Realtors. That research seems to indicate that borrowers are paying more for appraisal fees than they recently did, but noted that appraisers reporting their fees have seen those fees reduced by as much as 40 percent. 

The Appraisal Institute alleges that this is due to the fact that banks have passed through the administration expenses to the consumers. 

Thus, the letter requests that the form be broadened to assure transparency with respect to appraisal services and the costs for appraisal management services. 

Banks That Own AMCs
 
The so-called “Merkley Amendment” of Dodd-Frank caps fees paid to banks to 3 percent of the loan amount. Separating the appraisal fee and appraisal management company fee on the SDF affects the 3 percent cap mandate on points and fees.

Certain large, national banks own appraisal management companies. So, when the appraisal management fee is bundled with the appraisal fee on the SDF, the fees fall outside of the Merkley Amendment requirements. 

If the fees are separated on the SDF, the appraisal management company fee, with respect to those AMCs owned by banks, would fall within the 3 percent cap, thereby constricting the amount available to other areas of the loan transaction. 

Obviously, banks that own appraisal management companies and receive AMC fees are concerned about adverse effects this may have on their operations.

On this point, the Dodd-Frank provides that the CFPB may exempt fees from the 3 percent cap on points and fees. Therefore, the Appraisal Institute urges the CFPB to exempt appraisal management company fees from the Merkley Amendment.

Library

Law Library Image

Appraisal Institute
American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers

Letter to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Opposing the bundling of appraisal fees
with appraisal management company fees:
CFPB’s proposed Settlement Disclosure Form
November 16, 2011

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

CFPB Issues “Early Warning Notice” Procedures

On November 7, 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its Bulletin 2011-04 (Enforcement), announcing plans to provide early warning of possible enforcement actions.

This CFPB bulletin outlined plans to provide advance notice of potential enforcement actions to individuals and firms under investigation, through a public notice process, called the Early Warning Notice.

The Early Warning Notice process is meant to allow the subject of an investigation to respond to any potential legal violations that CFPB enforcement staff believes have been committed before the Bureau ultimately decides whether to begin legal action.

OVERVIEW

The CFPB claims that the Early Warning Notice process is modeled on similar procedures that have been successful at other federal agencies.

The process begins with the Office of Enforcement explaining to individuals or firms that evidence gathered in a CFPB investigation indicates they have violated consumer financial protection laws.

Recipients of an Early Warning Notice are then invited to submit a response in writing, within 14 days, including any relevant legal or policy arguments and facts.

In July, the CFPB’s Office of Enforcement made public its rules regarding the initiation and execution of enforcement investigations.

The Early Warning Notice is not required by law, but CFPB believes it will promote even-handed enforcement of consumer financial laws. The decision to give notice in particular cases is discretionary and will depend on factors such as whether prompt action is needed.

EARLY WARNING NOTICE LETTER - SAMPLE

Before the Office of Enforcement recommends that the CFPB commence enforcement proceedings, the Office of Enforcement may give the subject of such recommendation notice of the nature of the subject's potential violations and may offer the subject the opportunity to submit a written statement in response.

The decision whether to give such notice is discretionary, and a notice may not be appropriate in some situations, such as in cases of ongoing fraud or when the Office of Enforcement needs to act quickly.

The objective of the notice is to ensure that potential subjects of enforcement actions have the opportunity to present their positions to the CFPB before an enforcement action is recommended or commenced.

RESPONDING TO THE “EARLY WARNING NOTICE” LETTER

The primary focus of the written statement in response should be legal and policy matters relevant to the potential enforcement proceedings.

Any factual assertions relied upon or present in the written statement must be made under oath by someone with personal knowledge of such facts.

Submissions may be discoverable by third parties in accordance with applicable law.

GUIDELINES FOR LETTER'S FORMAT
The written statement must:
-Be submitted on 8.5 by 11 inch paper
-Double spaced
-At least 12-point type
-No longer than 40 pages
-Be received by the CFPB no more than 14 calendar days after the Notice.
The written response statement should be sent to the CFPB staff conducting the investigation, and must clearly reference the specific investigation to which it relates.

If the Office of Enforcement ultimately recommends the commencement of an enforcement proceeding, the written statement will be included with that recommendation.

Persons involved in an investigation who wish to submit a written statement on their own initiative at any point during an investigation would follow the relevant procedures described above.

LIBRARY

Law Library Image

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Early Warning Notice
Bulletin 2011-04
November 7, 2011

Sample Early Warning Notice
Bulletin 2011-04
November 7, 2011

Friday, October 28, 2011

CFPB: Monitoring Elder Abuse

The CFPB has named former Minnesota attorney general and state senator Hubert H. Humphrey III as the head of its newly established Office of Older Americans.

In a conference call Oct. 19, 2011, Humphrey said the most important priority for the new office will be to "listen, to hear from our seniors so that we learn and understand exactly what they are facing." Despite the absence of a confirmed CFPB director, Humphrey said "we have a lot of work to do right now that we can take on."

Humphrey noted that Americans over the age of 62 have been particularly hard-hit by the past few years, making it hard for them to pay bills or to enjoy retirement. Seniors are losing an estimated $2.9 billion a year to financial abuse, he said, while housing values have dropped 30 percent nationally since their peak in 2006.

The CFPB said the various tasks of the Office of Older Americans will include educating seniors about their financial choices in the areas of long-term savings, retirement planning and long-term care. It will also provide coordination between senior groups, law enforcement, financial institutions and federal and state agencies to identify and prevent scams.

House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank, D-Mass., praised the choice of Humphrey, noting that attorneys general have been at the forefront of consumer protection. "One of the goals in establishing the CFPB was to create, at the federal level, a capacity and willingness to defend consumers that has long been present in the states but not nationally," he said.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, also hailed the appointment, stating that Humphrey's "commitment to consumer protection as Minnesota's Attorney General, along with his breadth of experience as Minnesota State President of the American Association of Retired Persons and one of their national board members will serve the CFPB exceptionally well."

For information about the Office of Older Americans and resources to help older Americans and their families, visit: www.consumerfinance.gov/older-americans

Library

Law Library Image
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Hubert H. Humphrey III appointed to administer
the Office of Older Americans
Full Text
October 19, 2011

Thursday, October 20, 2011

CFPB: Presentation on Consumer Complaints Portal

On July 21, 2011, the CFPB recently developed a special access portal that allows financial institutions to view and respond to complaints in the CFPB consumer complaint database.

Recently, the CFPB provided a presentation describing the consumer complaint portal, relevant information regarding its use, and FAQs. The presentation is accurate as of September 20, 2011.

At this time, the portal takes consumer complaints about credit cards and provider resources for distressed homeowners. This portal allows complainants to check the status of their complaints.

The portal is meant to serve as a liaison between the CFPB and financial institutions. After receiving a complaint and addressing the complaint directly with the consumer, financial institutions can use the portal to provide an explanation of the resolution and the actions taken, select a resolution status, and attach relevant documents if necessary.

The Presentation is available in our Library.

Company Portal Manual

The CFPB calls the consumer complaint portal's presentation the "Company Portal Manual." Essentially, the Company Portal is designed to enable financial institutions to view and respond to complaints submitted to the CFPB by consumers.

In using the portal, financial institutions are able to provide an explanation of the resolution and the actions taken with respect to the consumer compliant.

Additionally, financial institutions will provide a status for the complaint and may actually attach relevant, supporting documentation with respect to the resolution.

CFPB-Complaint Process-1

Selecting the Status   

The CFPB asks that financial institutions respond to a consumer complaint within 10 days of the filing date.

There are four possible statuses that may be selected by the financial institution: Full Resolution Provided, Partial Resolution Provided, No Resolution Provided, and Incorrect Company.

CFPB-Complaint Process-2

LIBRARY
 
Law Library Image
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Company Portal Manual
Consumer Complaints
September 20, 2011

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

CFPB Issues Mortgage Disclosure Update

The CFPB has issued its fourth update to the Mortgage Disclosure form. This is the fourth time since May 2011 that the CFPB has issued an update to the form and requested comments. 

To date, the CFPB has received more than 24,000 comments, as part of its Know Before You Owe, the review program that commenced in May 2011. The CFPB website, activated on February 3, 2011, contains more information about providing feedback to the Know Before You Owe endeavor.

In September, the CFPB requested that commenters compare two different designs as well as to compare two different loans using the same design. The purpose of the comparative approach is apparently to enable the public to determine ease of use.

We have reported continuously on the development of the Mortgage Disclosure, for example, here and here.

At this time, the CFPB has also undertaken a study to update the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. When that model is introduced, the CFPB will again ask for comments.

Fourth Model 

This fourth model is being tested with consumers and industry in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In that study, the CFPB is comparing a fixed-rate and an adjustable-rate loan, permitting the users to see how this prototype would work for both loan products.

Essentially, the model is based on a disclosure that combines the Truth in Lending form and the Good Faith Estimate.

Interesting Comments  

There have been various comments of interest to the development of the Mortgage Disclosure. Among the more interesting are: suggesting that the cost calculations show a 10 year time frame, to clearly distinguish separately the lender from the non-lender charges, to add more information about shopping for mortgages, and to more clearly explain the time-sensitivity of price comparisons. 

Library
 
Law Library Image
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau     
Mortgage Disclosures - Models
Fixed and Adjustable
  
October 17, 2011

Monday, October 17, 2011

CFPB Issues Supervision and Examination Manual

On October 13, 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its Supervision and Examination Manual - Version 1.0 (Manual). This is first edition of a guide devoted to how the CFPB will supervise and examine consumer financial service providers under its jurisdiction for compliance with Federal consumer financial law.

The Manual is divided into three parts: 

Part 1: Describes the supervision and examination process. 

Part 2: Contains examination procedures, including both the general instructions and the procedures for determining compliance with specific regulations. 

Part 3: Provides templates for documenting information related to supervised entities and the examination process, including examination reports.

Unfortunately, at this time Part 1 and Part 2 are only available as website pages. Part 3 is available in PDF.

However, we have created a Directory and Compendium.

Compendium-1

At this time, Part 1 and Part 2 are only available as website pages.

Part 3 is available in PDF.

In preparing our Audit and Due Diligence procedures for our clients, we have combined all three parts into a single Directory with links to both each section's text and website links. There are over 700 pages in this compendium. 

Our compendium provides:
  • Directory: All Sections
  • Contents: Links to Compendium Text
  • Contents: Links to CFPB Website Text
We are pleased to share this compilation with you for free.

Due to the huge size of the compendium - over 13 MBs - it must be downloaded from our secure Extranet. If you are interested in obtaining this compendium, please request it and we'll send you the download instructions.

Compendium-1

Supervision and Examination Manual - Version 1.0 
OUTLINE

Part I - Compliance Supervision and Examination
Supervision and Examination Process     
Overview     
Examinations 

Part II - Examinations Procedures 
Compliance Management Review

Unfair, Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures

Equal Credit Opportunity Act     
Narrative     
Examination Program     
Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures     
Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures – Appendix

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures     
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Checklist

Truth in Lending Act     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures     
Appendix A: High-Cost Mortgage (§ 226.32) Worksheet

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures     
Checklist 

Homeowners Protection Act     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures

Consumer Leasing Act     
Narrative     
Consumer Leasing Act Examination Procedures     
Consumer Leasing Act Checklist

Fair Credit Reporting Act     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures

Electronic Fund Transfer Act     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures     
Checklist 

Truth in Savings Act     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures     
Checklist

Privacy of Consumer Financial Information (GLBA)     
Narrative     
Examination Procedures     
Examination Procedures Attachment     
Checklist

Mortgage Servicing Examination Procedures 

Part III - Examination Process Templates     
Templates     
Entity Profile     
Risk Assessment     
Supervision Plan     
Examination Scope Summary     
Examination Report     
Examination Report cover     
Examination Report cover letter

Compendium-1

LIBRARY

Law Library Image

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Supervision and Examination Manual 
Version 1.0 
Announcement

October 13, 2011

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Seeking Clearance to Fund Disclosure Research

On September 26, 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published its September 20, 2011 Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This Generic ICR requests OMB's review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The title of the Generic ICR is Generic Clearance for Research in Development of Disclosure Forms.

This issuance commences a Comment Period to the OMB, which will conclude on or before October 26, 2011.

Synopsis
 
The Dodd-Frank Act (Title X) requires the CFPB to develop model forms that integrate separate disclosures concerning residential mortgage loans that are required under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

For more information, please visit our newsletters or the CFPB section in our Library.

Development of these integrated disclosures will involve qualitative testing of the disclosures given in connection with consummation of the transaction and may involve testing of additional disclosures required by TILA and RESPA during the shopping, application, and origination process.

The CFPB may perform qualitative testing of other model disclosures or materials related to the integrated mortgage loan disclosures, such as instructions for loan originators, tools to assist consumers in understanding the disclosures and certain loan products and features, other mortgage loan-related disclosures, and of industry usability.

Also, the CFPB anticipates engaging the public to obtain feedback about the draft integrated mortgage loan disclosures and related materials before formal notice and comment of proposed rules.

Data Collection and Disclosures
 
The CFPB plans to collect qualitative data through a variety of collection methods, which may include interviews, focus groups and the Internet, in order to inform its design and development of the mandated integrated disclosures and their implementation.

The information collected through qualitative evaluation methods is being gathered in order to inform the disclosure form's design and content, using an "iterative process" to improve the draft form, presumably to make it easier for consumers to use the document to (1) identify the terms of the loan, (2) compare among different loan products, and (3) understand the final terms and costs of the loan transaction.

The research is expect to result in recommendations for development of and revisions to disclosure forms and related materials that would be provided to consumers in connection with obtaining mortgage loans.

Research activities will be conducted primarily by external contractors employing various cognitive psychological testing methods. The CFPB claims that "this approach has been demonstrated to be feasible and valuable by other agencies in developing disclosures and other forms."

The planned research activities will be conducted during FY 2012 through FY 2014 with the goal of creating effective disclosures and related materials for consumers.

LIBRARY
 
Law Library Image

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request 
Generic Clearance for Research 
in Development of Disclosure Forms
 
September 26, 2011

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Consumer Financial Protection: Bureau or Bureaucracy?

Part III of a Three-Part Series on Financial Reform Legislation
Dodd-Frank: Legislation - Reactive or Proactive
Author: Jonathan Foxx
Published in National Mortgage Professional Magazine
First Published: October 2010


Although Elizabeth Warren has left the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her views continue to provide inspiration to its management and staff. Perhaps it would be wise to read the article I wrote last October, outlining the CFPB, its mandates, and its prospects.


__________________________________________


Society is founded not on the ideals but on the nature of man


and the constitution of man rewrites the constitutions of states.


But what is the constitution of man?[i]


Will and Ariel Durant


In the first two parts of this 3-part series,[ii] we have explored the basic structure of the new financial reform law, known as the Dodd-Frank Act (“Act”), as it affects residential mortgage loan originations.[iii] We have already given consideration to the many mortgage loan regulatory provisions that the Act covers[iv] and especially to the Mortgage Reform and Predatory Lending Act, a primary component of this landmark financial legislation.[v]


Now, we will turn our attention to the very core of the Act itself vis-à-vis the mortgage industry and consumer financial protection: the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (known also as the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” or “CFPB,” and hereinafter as “Bureau”).[vi]


But first, a Thought Experiment.[vii]


A vast, entangled array of very small and sleek wires, super strong magnets, and very wide and long cables extend out omnidirectionally – all of which lines and circuits are laid throughout a network of interlocking, electrically generated devices that are held in place in their respective positions on a shaky iron scaffold by fraying, single-knotted ropes. The devices are needed to power vital and critical services to a community. But, due to wear and tear on their bindings, some devices are about to break free, threatening to pull down with them the entire array of wires, magnets, cables, and other devices. Any device can plummet at any time. Before it is too late, all the lines must be disentangled, traced to each of the devices, and rerouted to a new and more stable grid; plus, the devices themselves must be transferred, one by one, to the new grid without damaging them, and then reconnected to their lines. But the collapse can take place at any time. A “crisis” looms!

So, how are you going to accomplish this heroic task quickly and effectively?


Now let’s consider this analogue: the energy source is Constitutional authority; the grid is the financial regulatory framework; wires and cables are the ways and means that implementing regulations affect one another; magnets are the legal foundations (i.e., case law precedents (stare decisis), statutes (federal and state), Constitutional laws or rights) on which all subject enumerated laws (see below) rest; devices are the existing regulations; and ropes are the various governmental agencies that are charged with enforcement of and monitoring compliance with specific implementing regulations.

By the end of this article, I hope you will have decided how best to solve the above-described and admittedly convoluted “crisis.” This article and the preceding articles in this series outline how Congress decided!


Please keep in mind that this series on the Dodd-Frank Act is meant to provide an overview. However, the legislation itself is extremely detailed and extensive. Therefore, for guidance and risk management support, I strongly recommend that you consult a risk management firm, residential mortgage compliance professional, or regulatory counsel to develop policies and procedures to implement the Act’s requirements.


One Bureau, Many Bureaucrats


Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government


and the law of the land than passing laws


which cannot be enforced.[viii]


Albert Einstein


There are numerous existing consumer protection laws that will be included in the transfer to the Bureau by July 21, 2011, the Designated Transfer Date,[ix] thereby giving it exclusive rulemaking and examination authority.[x]

These “enumerated laws” include:[xi]

  • Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA)[xii]
  • Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)[xiii]
  • Consumer Leasing Act (CLA)[xiv]
  • Electronic Funds Transfer Act (except the Durbin interchange amendment) (EFTA)[xv]
  • Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)[xvi]
  • Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA)[xvii]
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act (except with respect to sections 615(e), 624 and 628) (FCRA)[xviii]
  • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)[xix]
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Act, subsections 43(c) through 43(f)(12) (FDIA)[xx]
  • Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, sections 502 through 509 (GLBA)[xxi]
  • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)[xxii]
  • Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA)[xxiii]
  • Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)[xxiv]
  • S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act (S.A.F.E. Act)[xxv]
  • Truth in Lending Act (TILA)[xxvi]
  • Truth in Savings Act (TISA)[xxvii]
  • Omnibus Appropriations Act– Section 626 (OAA)[xxviii]
  • Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA)[xxix]


As I have discussed elsewhere, the Bureau would be assigned primary authority to enforce the aforementioned laws, but other federal regulators, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the banking agencies, and the Federal Trade Commission, would retain overlapping, secondary enforcement authority over certain requirements. State Attorneys General would be empowered to enforce federal laws under the Bureau (subject to any existing limitations in the laws to be transferred to the Bureau's authority).[xxx] And state consumer financial protection laws would not be preempted, except to the extent that they are inconsistent with federal law (although such state laws could be stricter than the federal laws, in which case they would not be preempted by federal law).[xxxi]

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

CFPB: Monitors Financial Products to Servicemembers

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Office of Servicemember Affairs (OSA) published today a request for comments from the public regarding information on consumer financial products and services that are currently being offered to or used by servicemembers and their families.

The authority for this request stems from Section 1013(e)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, which requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to educate and empower servicemembers and their families to make better informed decisions regarding consumer financial products and services.

Among other things, the OSA is particularly interested in information on products and services (and associated programs and policies) that are tailored to the unique financial needs of servicemembers and their families.

The issuance is a Notice and Request for Information.

Comment Due Date: September 20, 2011

Office of Servicemember Affairs

The OSA is empowered to coordinate with CFPB's Consumer Response function in order to monitor consumer complaints by servicemembers and their families and further coordinate efforts among federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding consumer protection measures relating to consumer financial products and services offered to, or used by, servicemembers and their families.

According to the issuance, the purpose of this information to develop a knowledge base of consumer financial products and services utilized by servicemembers that will inform the OSA's planning with respect to education and outreach initiatives, the monitoring of consumer complaints, and other consumer protection measures.

SIX QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

The CFPB seeks public comment on the following questions:

1. What consumer financial products and services are currently offered to or utilized by servicemembers and their families?

2. What consumer financial products and services (and associated programs, policies, and practices) are tailored to the unique financial needs of servicemembers and their families or are marketed specifically to servicemembers and their families?
The OSA is particularly interested in:
a. Information on consumer financial products or services that are designed to address:
deployments,
permanent-change-of-station moves,
overseas assignments,
relocations, 
and similar circumstances.
b. Information on short-term lending products that are tailored to the needs of servicemembers and their families.
c. Information on consumer financial products or services that are comparable to the Department of Defense (DOD) Savings Deposit Program.
3. What financial education opportunities are financial service providers offering to servicemembers and their families, both in person and online?

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Coordinating Consumer Complaints

On August 12, 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it had entered into an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), allowing the CFPB to access consumer complaints within the FTC's Consumer Sentinel system.

This agreement implements a Dodd-Frank Act provision that requires the CFPB to share consumer complaint information with the FTC and other state and federal agencies. In addition, the CFPB will share complaint information that it receives from consumers with the Sentinel database, subject to appropriate privacy protections and access restrictions. 

According to the CFPB, the "goal is to make sure agencies coordinate their enforcement of consumer financial protection laws."

Consumer Sentinel

The FTC's Consumer Sentinel is used by law enforcement to track and respond to consumer complaints. It is an online database of consumer complaints maintained by the FTC. The complaints in the database touch on many financial matters, from advance-fee loans to credit scams, from debt collection to credit reports, and more. The database is accessible only to law enforcement.

Among the government entities that are using Consumer Sentinel are several state Attorneys General (including Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington State), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center.

Non-governmental organizations include the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, MoneyGram International, the National Consumers League, Publishers Clearing House, Xerox Corporation, and the Better Business Bureaus.

Visit Library


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Coordinating Consumer Complaints
Kent Markus
Deputy Director/Enforcement
August 12, 2011

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Winning the Future - Losing the Past

Foxx_(2009.04.02)
Jonathan Foxx is the President and Managing Director of Lenders Compliance Group.Separater-Grey

“Winning the Future!” By now, most of us have heard President Obama's new slogan for his 2012 re-election campaign. 

But for the mortgage industry and consumers, it seems like something very vital is at stake: causes of the recent financial meltdown are creeping and clawing their way back. 

Perhaps we are not so much Winning the Future as Losing the Past.

Line-Webpage

Famous Last Words

Here are the very last words of the 1616 page Senate's amendments to the House's financial reform bill, which together formed the basis of the Dodd-Frank Act (Dodd-Frank):
Amend the title so as to read: An Act to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. (My Emphasis) 
The nomenclature "too big to fail," otherwise known by the acronym TBTF, was placed into the legislative language right then and there!

But that phrase "too big too fail" itself never actually made it into the 2319 page Dodd-Frank Act.

Did it just disappear forever or merely reappear with a make-over?

Line-Webpage

What’s In A Name

Dodd-Frank saw to it that the pesky and politically unpopular term "too big to fail" disappeared, but the concept was craftily replaced with a shiny new term, known as a "systemically important financial institution," also prestigiously having an acronym of its very own: "SIFI." (Pronounced in the same way as you would pronounce SciFi!)

Is the SIFI a different kind of indomitable beast than the TBTF monstrosity?

Let's take a closer look, by reading some Dodd-Frank descriptions of this SIFI creature:
  • Entities that are systemically important or can significantly impact the financial system of the United States.
  • The terms 'systemically important' and 'systemic importance' mean a situation where the failure of or a disruption to the functioning of a financial market utility or the conduct of a payment, clearing, or settlement activity could create, or increase, the risk of significant liquidity or credit problems spreading among financial institutions or markets and thereby threaten the stability of the financial system of the United States.
And here is one of several factors that may be taken into consideration, when deciding to protect us from the flailing SIFI:
  • The effect that the failure of or a disruption to the financial market utility or payment, clearing, or settlement activity would have on critical markets, financial institutions, or the broader financial system.
Now you might argue that TBTF is a somewhat colloquial expression, a political and journalistic tool, but its successor, SIFI, is now enshrined into law along with certain actionable remediation. Conceptually, however, I see very little light between the meaning of the two terms.

So did Dodd-Frank conquer the "too big to fail" beast, wrestling the TBTF to the ground, casting it into chains, pulling off its griftopic mask, and finding underneath the "systemically important financial institution," that rapaciously attenuated SIFI?

Line-Webpage

Are We Safe From The SIFI?      

Let us presume that Dodd-Frank actually provides viable regulatory remedies for keeping this SIFI chained up. As you may know, I have written extensively about the breathtaking lack of formidable brakes in Dodd-Frank to avoid the SIFI debacle. Indeed, certain markets are still exposed to systemic failure, as that term is defined by Dodd-Frank. In some cases, certain markets are inadequately addressed by or they are not even regulated through Dodd-Frank.

In any event, let us just suppose that somehow Dodd-Frank actually has all the regulatory remedies it needs to keep the SIFI under control. What may happen in another meltdown?

Monday, July 25, 2011

Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA)

On July 22, 2011, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) published in the Federal Register for public comment an Interim Final Rule implementing amendments to the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA) made by the  Dodd-Frank Act (Dodd-Frank).

AMTPA authorizes state-licensed or state-chartered housing creditors (state housing creditors) to make alternative mortgage transactions in compliance with federal rather than state law, in order to establish parity and competitive equality between state and federal  lenders.

Effective July 21, 2011, Dodd-Frank amended AMTPA to transfer rule-writing authority to the CFPB and to narrow the scope of federal preemption.

After July 21, 2011 Dodd-Frank provides that state housing creditors may only make alternative mortgage transactions under AMTPA if they comply with rules issued by the CFPB, even though Dodd-Frank does not vest the CFPB with authority to issue such rules before that date.

Accordingly, CFPB interim rules are needed immediately in order to avoid a suspension in the operation of AMTPA, which would prevent state housing creditors from making variable rate loans and other alternative mortgage transactions in states where such loans are otherwise prohibited by state law. 

OVERVIEW 


Accordingly, CFPB interim rules are needed immediately in order to avoid a suspension in the operation of AMTPA, which would prevent state housing creditors from making variable rate loans and other alternative mortgage transactions in states where such loans are otherwise prohibited by state law.

Essentially, the CFPB apparently does not believe that Congress intended its amendments to AMTPA to create a regulatory gap that would interrupt access to credit.

Indeed, in the Federal Register the CFPB states that there is good cause to issue this interim final rule without notice and comment and effective immediately in order to avoid the risk of disrupting mortgage markets, placing state housing creditors at an "inappropriate competitive disadvantage," and reducing consumers' access to credit. 

In particular, the CFPB is concerned that failure to issue an interim final rule addressing the modification of existing AMTPA loans could create uncertainty and discourage such modifications.

ADVANCE NOTICE 

In advance of issuing this Interim Final Rule, the CFPB issued a Public Bulletin, on June 27, 2011, alerting state chartered and licensed lenders and other interested parties that:

(1) the Dodd-Frank amendments to AMTPA are to take effect on July 21, 2011; and,

(2) the amendments affect what laws apply to mortgage loans issued by state chartered or licensed lenders after that date, by narrowing the statutory definition of "alternative mortgage transaction" and the scope of preemption under AMTPA.

Line-Webpage

LIBRARY
Law Library Image

Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity
(Regulation D)
Interim Final Rule with request for public comment.
Federal Register: 76/141
July 22, 2011

Amendments to the
Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act
CFPB Bulletin 11-1
June 27, 2011

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Ability-to-Repay: Regulating or Underwriting?


EXCERPT # 1 

It seems to me that the imposition of an ability-to-repay requirement as a regulatory mandate is an admission that market forces cannot discipline lenders or incentivize lenders to act in their own self-interest.

This is an obvious shift in liabilities, because this mandate shifts the burden of compliance to the lenders in order to assure that their contractually bound borrowers can pay back their loans. Parties to any contract can become adversaries!

In other words, the relationship between the creditor and the borrower is innately affected and extensively undermined by this Rule, inasmuch as it imposes a new kind of theory for a regulatory framework and, in my estimation, infantilizes lenders by making them comply with a regulator's ad hoc way of rationing the extension of credit. 


EXCERPT # 2

If the rationing of credit is meted out through this regulatory construct, it can be legitimately asserted as well that lenders are not arms-length, contractual counterparties; that is, lenders now will have a duty to assess a prospective borrower's ability to repay, irrespective of collateral value and securitization.

This change in the dynamics between and the inherent, due diligence tension among the parties to a residential mortgage transaction raise serious issues about the systemic consequences soon to be engendered. 


Monday, July 18, 2011

Opening a Dialogue: Elizabeth Warren and the Mortgage Industry

 
Jonathan Foxx is the President and Managing Director of Lenders Compliance Group. 

Separater-Grey

According to news reports, Elizabeth Warren will not be chosen as the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Since September 2010, Professor Warren worked diligently and reliably to "stand up" the CFPB in accordance with the specified requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Whether or not Professor Warren remains with the CFPB in some capacity or moves on to other venues, the views and vision that she brought to the creation of the CFPB will likely remain the standard by which the CFPB will be judged to have served its mission.

With this in mind, I would like to share my just published interview with Professor Warren, entitled:

Opening a Dialogue: Elizabeth Warren and the Mortgage Industry

The article is published in the July 2011 edition of the National Mortgage Professional Magazine, which is available to you, compliments of the magazine. (A one year free subscription is offered.)

This interview, which includes questions posed by leading mortgage industry organizations, offers a deeper insight into how the CFPB's mission may affect state law, the mortgage industry, mortgage brokers, and even educational opportunities for mortgage loan originators.

The article also contains a section, entitled In Her Own Words, which provides additional insight into Professor Warren's views about consumer financial protection.

OPENING A DIALOGUE:
ELIZABETH WARREN
AND THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY


Download Article-Grey-1
 
As many in Congress seem bent on immobilizing the CFPB, it will be important to determine the extent to which the new agency lives up to the standards and mission which Professor Warren hoped it would achieve.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Professor Warren, her friendly and cooperative staff, and leaders of the many industry organizations that took part in this project. It was a pleasure working with you all.

Friday, July 15, 2011

FRB: Mortgage Rulemaking Chart 2008 - 2011

On Wednesday, we notified you about the testimony given by witnesses in the hearing held by the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee (Committee of Financial Services) held a hearing, entitled "Mortgage Origination: the Impact of Recent Changes on Homeowners And Businesses."

The overall purpose of the hearing was to evaluate recent changes to mortgage origination laws, with particular focus on the impact the new laws and regulations have on consumers and credit availability in the mortgage finance markets.

During the hearing, Sandra Braunstein, the FRB's Director of Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, provided written testimony containing a table entitled "Summary of Federal Reserve Board Mortgage Rulemakings - 2008 through 2011."

I have removed the table from the written testimony and featured it separately in our Library. 

Line-Webpage

MORTGAGE RULEMAKINGS - 2008 THROUGH 2011

FINAL RULES
  • Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA): Final Rule
  • Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act, Part I: Final Rule
  • Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act, Part II: Interim Final Rule
  • Helping Families Save Their Homes Act - Mortgage Transfer Disclosure: Final Rule
  • Loan Originator Compensation: Final Rule
  • Dodd-Frank Act - Appraisal Independence: Interim Final Rule
  • Dodd-Frank Act - Escrow Account: Final Rule
PROPOSED RULES
  • Regulatory Review of Disclosure Rules for Closed-end Mortgages (Phase I)
  • Regulatory Review of Disclosure Rules for Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs) (Phase I)
  • Regulatory Review of Mortgage Disclosure Rules (Phase II)
  • Dodd-Frank Act - Escrow Account Disclosures
  • Dodd-Frank Act - Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgages
    Line-Webpage

    LIBRARY

    Law Library Image

    Summary of Federal Reserve Board Mortgage Rulemakings

    2008 through 2011
     

    Statement of Sandra F. Braunstein, Director
    Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Federal Reserve System
    Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity Subcommittee
    (Committee on Financial Services)
    July 13, 2011


    Wednesday, July 13, 2011

    CFPB: The Headless Horseman

    Foxx_(2009.04.02)

    COMMENTARY: by JONATHAN FOXX
    Jonathan Foxx, former Chief Compliance Officer of two publicly traded financial institutions, is President and Managing Director of Lenders Compliance Group, the nation’s first full-service, mortgage risk management firm in the country.

    Line-Webpage

    At this writing, we are almost a week away from the Designated Transfer Date - the date on which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) receives its enumerated authorities - and nobody has been chosen, appointed or nominated to head the new agency. Several suggestions for the principal position abound, primarily Elizabeth Warren.

    How can such a monumental lack of political discipline, by Democrats and Republicans alike, be accounted for? 

    CFPB: Laws

    The CFPB, created by the Dodd-Frank Act, on July 21st it will receive authority over:

    -Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA)
    -Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
    -Consumer Leasing Act (CLA)
    -Electronic Funds Transfer Act (except the Durbin interchange amendment) (EFTA)
    -Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)
    -Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA)
    -Fair Credit Reporting Act (except sections 615(e), 624 and 628) (FCRA)
    -Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
    -Federal Deposit Insurance Act, subsections 43(c) through 43(f)(12) (FDIA)
    -Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, sections 502 through 509 (GLBA)
    -Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
    -Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA)
    -Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
    -S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act (S.A.F.E. Act)
    -Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
    -Truth in Savings Act (TISA)
    -Omnibus Appropriations Act- Section 626 (OAA)
    -Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA)

    In just a few days, the CFPB is going to have authority over the above-stated enumerated laws through rulemaking, orders, guidance, interpretations, policy statements, examinations, and enforcement actions.

    The CFPB will be assigned primary authority to enforce the aforementioned laws, but other federal regulators, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the banking agencies, and the Federal Trade Commission, will retain overlapping, secondary enforcement authority over certain requirements. State Attorneys General will be empowered to enforce federal laws under the CFPB (subject to any existing limitations in the laws to be transferred to the CFPB's authority). State consumer financial protection laws would not be preempted, except to the extent that they are inconsistent with federal law (although such state laws could be stricter than the federal laws, in which case they would not be preempted by federal law).

    CFPB: Products

    The CFPB will have oversight over many financial products and services, including, but not limited to, credit extension; credit counseling; loan servicing; Credit Reporting Agencies, their agents and affiliates; real property leases; real estate settlement services; real estate appraisals; depository accounts; financial advisory services; exchange of funds and transmittal of funds; consumer custodial fund services; so-call "stored value cards;" check cashing; debt management, settlement, and collection services; payment processing services; and, a catch-all "other products and services" (as the CFPB so defines).

    CFPB: New Offices

    There will be various units and offices: a research unit to monitor the consumer financial products and services market, and a unit to collect and track complaints; three new offices to be established within one year of the Designated Transfer Date, an Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, an Office of Financial Education, an Office of Service Members Affairs; and, an Office of Financial Protection for Older Americans, which must be established within 180 days after the Designated Transfer Date. Furthermore, there will be a Private Education Loan Ombudsman to process complaints from borrowers of private education loans.

    CFPB: Staff

    In addition to the CFPB's responsibility to build its own staff and administrative operations, it will collaborate with the federal banking agencies and HUD to choose employees to be transferred from their agencies to the CFPB. All such employee transfers are to be fully effectuated not later than 90 days after the Designated Transfer Date.

    CFPB: Director

    The Director must establish all units and offices within specific time frames, include various coordinating and administrative mandates, provide for reporting requirements to Congress, and must see to it that the various components of the CFPB function through interacting participation within and across all CFPB units and, where applicable, certain federal and state agencies and regulators. 

    In addition to the foregoing, the Director must also establish the Consumer Advisory Board and appoint its members. By July 21st, as well as its receiving other authorities pursuant to Dodd-Frank, the CFPB must, among other things, conduct research relating to consumer financial products and services, develop its nationwide consumer complaint response center, plan and take steps to implement the risk-based supervision of non-depository entities, and prepare for the opening of outreach offices.

    Line-Webpage

    "You say yes, I say no / You say stop and I say go, go, go"  (Beatles) 
         
    Whatever your political persuasion these days, it is irrefutable that this new agency is soon coming into its powers! 

    Some people believe that the Director should be industry friendly; others believe the Director should be consumer friendly. Does it occur to any of them that these predilections are not mutually exclusive?

    Some legislators want to defund the CPFB or "defang" it (as one Congressperson has opined); others want it to have full funding and all the enforcement powers granted by Dodd-Frank. 

    But defunding an agency that is set to receive all the enumerated laws is entirely counterproductive, inasmuch the industry will depend on it for oversight of these laws. And the CFPB, as required by Dodd-Frank, that is deprived of enforcement powers is virtually no agency at all: this is to "defang" it without regard for the consequences. 

    Every compliance officer knows that compliance means nothing without enforcement!

    "I say high, you say low / You say why, and I say I don't know" (Beatles)

    We all know that the President cannot make a recess appointment if Congress is not in recess, notwithstanding the "pro forma sessions" that may be conducted in order to keep the Congress "in session." Essentially, the tactic is for opposition legislators - primarily Republicans - to prevent an appointment of anybody at all to the CFPB unless the CFFB is changed. 

    As to confirming an appointment, at this time the President has put forth almost 300 civilian appointments this year, but fewer than 100 of them have been confirmed by the Senate - and these are instances where there is no opposition! Indeed, there are 15 judge nominees who have already been unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but their nominations have not even been sent to the floor of the Senate.

    Importantly - and, at this late date, inexplicably - President Obama has not even announced his choice for the Director! How can consumers or industry expect congressional action when the President himself won't choose?

    At this time, Elizabeth Warren is standing up the CFPB. She is the very person who devised the idea of a consumer financial protection agency and then advocated in the halls of Congress, in speeches, lectures, and interviews throughout the United States, for its creation. Since September 17, 2010, she has been building the CFPB in accordance with the requirements of Dodd-Frank. 

    While proponents and opponents lambast each other, and a Director is not appointed, the stakes for the mortgage industry continue to grow ever higher and perilous. The many enumerated laws being fully empowered into the CFPB on July 21st affirmatively require substantive, continuous, and very careful oversight. 

    The individual who manages that agency matters!

    Line-Webpage

    Headless Horseman      
    • "The dominant spirit, however, that haunts this enchanted region, and seems to be commander-in-chief of all the powers of the air, is the apparition of a figure on horseback, without a head. It is said by some to be the ghost of a Hessian trooper, whose head had been carried away by a cannon-ball, in some nameless battle during the Revolutionary War, and who is ever and anon seen by the country folk hurrying along in the gloom of night, as if on the wings of the wind."
        - Washington Irving, "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"
    The principal character in "The Legend of Sleep Hollow" is Ichabod Crane, a school teacher. Sleepy Hollow is believed to have been located in the area of Tarrytown, NY. Ichabod is killed quite dramatically when the headless horseman, a ghost - and it is believed that ghosts can't cross water! - throws his severed head across a bridge, over the water, and hits poor Ichabad off his horse. The next morning, Ichabod's hat is found nearby, and beside it is a shattered pumpkin. Ichabod was never seen in Sleepy Hollow ever again. In Irving's story, one is led to conclude that the headless horseman was really no ghost at all, but Abraham van Brunt (aka "Brom Bones"), Ichabod's rival for the hand in marriage of Katrina van Tassel, the beautiful daughter of a rich farmer.

    Any agency without a head is crippled, but, given the mandates arrogated to the CFPB, not to have a Director immediately is especially debilitating to consumers and mortgage industry participants alike.

    Instead of being rivals, like Ichabod Crane and Brom Bones, it is in the interest of both consumers and industry to lobby for a strong CFPB, under the direction of a wise, knowledgeable, and experienced leader.

    This is not a job for a career bureaucrat. It requires a Director with considerable managerial, legal, political, and financial knowledge, all of which ideally would be expressed through a balanced temperament, a focused and incisive mind, a fierce consumer advocacy, and sophisticated communication skills.

    It seems that Sleepy Hollow has relocated to the Congress of the United States.

    Separator-Glow

    What do you think? 

    I would welcome your comments.

    Please contact me if you want to contribute an article.