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.

____________________________________________________

CFPB’s Final Rule: Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgages

On Wednesday, I provided an outline of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB's) Regulatory Agenda for 2013. As if on cue, the CFPB accommodated us on Thursday with the first of its forthcoming issuances.* This pertains to the Final Rule regarding Ability-to-Repay, which leaves the Final Rule issuances this month for Loan Originator Compensation, Mortgage Servicing, and Requirements for Escrow Accounts.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) required that, for residential mortgages, creditors must make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. It also established a "presumption" of compliance for a certain category of mortgages, which was called “qualified mortgages” or "QMs." These provisions are similar, but not identical to, the Federal Reserve Board's (FRB's) 2008 rule and cover the entire mortgage market rather than simply higher-priced mortgages. The FRB proposed a rule to implement the new statutory requirements before authority passed to the CFPB to finalize the rule. The compliance effective date is January 10, 2014.

I have written extensively about Ability-to-Repay and the Qualified Mortgage.

Please feel free to review these articles.

In this article, I would like to mention the premises used as the reasons for an Ability-to-Repay rule (ATR). Then I will outline the essential features of ATR, followed by a review of the "Qualified Mortgage." Finally, I will provide a general summation in order to provide some context with respect to the Final Rule's implementation.

_________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE

Premises for Ability-to-Repay
What is Ability-to-Repay?
What is the Qualified Mortgage?
Types of Qualified Mortgages
Summation

Library

_________________________________________________

Premises for Ability-to-Repay

The CFPB believes that when consumers apply for a mortgage they "often struggle to understand how much of a monthly payment they can afford to take on." Thus, according to the CFPB, the consumer may reasonably assume that lenders and mortgage brokers would not make loans to people who cannot afford them. But in the years leading up to the financial crisis, the CFPB asserts that lenders too often made mortgages that could not be paid back.

Therefore, the purpose of ATR is to require lenders to obtain and verify information to determine whether a consumer can afford to repay the mortgage and, per the CFPB, thereby help to restore trust in the mortgage market.

These are the premises upon which the CFPB has established the need for Ability-to-Repay:

-In the lead up to the financial crisis, certain lending practices set consumers up to fail with mortgages they could not afford.

-The deterioration in underwriting standards contributed to dramatic increases in mortgage delinquencies and rates of foreclosures.

-The Dodd-Frank Act recognizes the need to mandate that lenders ensure consumers have the ability to pay back their mortgages.

-The Ability-to-Repay rule protects consumers from risky practices that helped cause the crisis.

In its review of the above-mentioned premises, the CFPB had taken the position that lenders sold no-doc and low-doc loans where consumers were “qualifying” for loans beyond their means. Lenders also "sold risky and complicated mortgages like interest-only loans, negative-amortization loans where the principal and eventually the monthly payment increases, hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages where the rate was set artificially low for years and then adjusted upwards, and option adjustable-rate mortgages where the consumer could 'pick a payment' which might result in negative amortization and eventually higher monthly payments."

In plain English, the CFPB asserts that lenders should not be able to offer no-doc, low-doc loans, otherwise known as “Alt-A” loans, where some lenders made quick sales by not requiring specific, qualifying documentation, yet then offloaded these risky mortgages by selling them to investors.

As it was contended, these actions precipitated the collapse of the housing market in 2008 and the subsequent financial crisis.

Dodd-Frank provides the authority to the CFPB to define criteria for certain loans called “Qualified Mortgages” that are presumed to meet the Ability-to-Repay rule requirements.

The salient observation about ATR is that the CFPB is issuing this rule in order "to ensure that responsible consumers get responsible loans," as well as ensuring that "lenders can extend credit responsibly - without worrying about competition from unscrupulous lenders."

_________________________________________________

What is Ability-to-Repay?

There are four (4) ATR components, each in its own way requiring the lender to obtain financial information from the loan applicant and verify them.

CFPB’s Regulatory Agenda - 2013

As we begin a new year and prepare ourselves for the blizzard of new and revised regulations coming our way, I think it is important for us to consider the regulatory agenda that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has set for itself.* As you've heard me say so many times, preparation is protection. So, please undertake a review of the agenda that the CFPB has promised to pursue in the coming months, especially with the view of how best to prepare for the changes that are sure to follow.

It is worth noting that the CFPB reasonably anticipates having certain regulatory matters under consideration during the period from October 1, 2012 to October 1, 2013. And the CFPB will publish updates to its agenda periodically through October 1, 2013. These matters will be under consideration by the CFPB, primarily including various rulemakings mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, such as several mortgage-related rulemakings and rulemakings to implement the CFPB's supervisory program for nondepository covered persons by, among other things, defining "larger participants" in certain consumer financial product and service markets. 

The CFPB is completing several mortgage-related rulemakings in January 2013, even as it continues to assess the need and resources available for additional rulemakings. For instance, the Dodd-Frank Act mandates rulemakings to implement amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to create a data reporting regime concerning small, women-owned, or minority-owned business lending. Also, the CFPB has inherited proposed rules concerning mortgage loans, home equity lines of credit, and other topics from other agencies as part of the transfer of authorities under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). All of these regulatory changes will require careful planning and clear guidance with respect to implementation.

In this article, I am going to highlight the regulatory changes that the CFPB has moved into their final stages. I offer a brief outline of the regulatory issues and the CFPB's likely resolution. Each of these regulations, now approaching the status of Final Rule, is extraordinarily significant and, in some instances, constitutes formidable challenges. 

_________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE

Chart

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -
Final Rule Stage (Selected Rules)

Final Rule Stages

Loan Originator Compensation (Regulation Z)
Mortgage Servicing (Regulation X, Regulation Z)
Requirements for Escrow Accounts (Regulation Z)
TILA Ability To Repay (Regulation Z)
TILA/RESPA Mortgage Disclosure Integration
(Regulation X, Regulation Z)

Library

_________________________________________________

Chart: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Final Rule Stage (Selected Rules)

This chart provides a quick overview of certain regulatory changes that the CFPB will promulgate this year. The chart also provides the anticipated Final Rule dates.

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.

Next Up, Reverse Mortgages!

In a June 28, 2012 Report to Congress, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the CFPB or the Bureau) published its study of reverse mortgage transactions. This study was required by Section 1076 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank).

The Report surmised that reverse mortgages are not being used as Congress originally intended, because, rather than provide income for borrowers during retirement, reverse mortgages are being provided to consumers at younger ages, thereby increasing the risk that these borrowers will go broke later in life. The study found that almost half of reverse mortgage borrowers in fiscal year 2011 were younger than 70 years of age.

Furthermore, the Report concluded that 70% of reverse mortgage borrowers withdrew all the available funds at once in lump-sum payments, which the CFPB claims can be squandered quickly, leaving borrowers with the potential to face foreclosure due to the reduced ability to pay property taxes. According to the study, nearly 10% of reverse mortgagors (as of February 2012) were at risk of foreclosure.

In its 231 page Report, the CFPB stated the following "emerging concerns":

1. Reverse mortgages are complex products and difficult for consumers to understand.

2. Reverse mortgage borrowers are using the loans in different ways than in the past, which increase risks to consumers.

3. Product features, market dynamics, and industry practices also create risks for consumers.

4. Counseling, while designed to help consumers understand the risks associated with reverse mortgages, needs improvement in order to be able to meet these challenges.

5. Some risks to consumers appear to have been adequately addressed by regulation, but remain a matter for supervision and enforcement, while other risks still require regulatory attention.

The study identified four major topics "where additional research would help determine if additional consumer education or regulatory action is needed."

Those topics are:

(a) Factors influencing consumer decisions;
(b) consumer use of reverse mortgage proceeds;
(c) the longer-term outcomes of reverse mortgages; and
(d) the differences in market dynamics and business practices among the broker, correspondent, and retail channels.

On July 2, 2012, the CFPB began the process of investigating the consumer use of reverse mortgages. This procedure begins with a Notice and Request for Information. In effect, that CFPB now seeks comment and information from the public on the aforementioned topics.

In this review of reverse mortgages, the CFPB will undertake, among other things, to identify any practice as unfair, deceptive, or abusive, and may provide for an integrated disclosure standard and model disclosures. Additionally, it will seek detailed information from the public on the factors that influence reverse mortgage consumers' decision-making, consumers' use of reverse mortgage loan proceeds, longer-term consumer outcomes of a decision to obtain a reverse mortgage, and differences in market dynamics and business practices among the broker, correspondent, and retail channels for reverse mortgages.

In this article, I will outline the scope of information that the CFPB is seeking from the public, including consumers, housing counselors, financial institutions, and others, regarding consumer use of reverse mortgages and consumer experiences during the reverse mortgage shopping process.*

Factors Influencing Consumer Decisions

The CFPB asks the following questions regarding the factors that influence consumer decisions:

1. What factors are most important to consumers in deciding whether to get a reverse mortgage?

2. What factors are most important to consumers in choosing among products? Among other things, comments could address the choice between fixed-rate, lump-sum reverse mortgages and adjustable-rate, line-of-credit or monthly disbursement reverse mortgages.

3. What factors are most important to consumers in choosing among potential lenders?

Consumer Use of Reverse Mortgage Proceeds

4. Nearly 75% of recent reverse mortgage consumers took out all of their available funds upfront in a lump sum.
   

a. What do consumers do with these funds?
b. Where do consumers place loan money that they do not use immediately? (i.e., in a savings account, an investment account, a certificate of deposit (CD), et cetera).

5. Some reverse mortgage consumers use reverse mortgage loan funds to refinance a traditional mortgage or home equity loan/line of credit.
   

a. What proportion of consumers are using reverse mortgage loan funds to refinance a traditional mortgage or home equity loan/line of credit?
b. What proportion of the loan funds are typically spent on paying off an existing mortgage?
c. Do consumers using a reverse mortgage to refinance an existing mortgage typically consider other options first (e.g. moving to a different home or a traditional refinancing)? If not, why not? If so, what factors lead them to choose a reverse mortgage instead?
   

6. Some reverse mortgage consumers use reverse mortgage loan funds to consolidate non-housing debts.
   

a. What proportion of borrowers use reverse mortgage loan funds to
consolidate non-housing debts?
b. What proportion of the loan funds are typically spent on consolidating non-housing debts?
c. What types of non-housing debts are typically consolidated (i.e., credit card, auto, medical-related debt, et cetera)?

CFPB's Flatland Fee

Kicked in the gut by a "flat fee" proposal, the already winded mortgage industry seems to be barely able to catch its breath from the CFPB's recent lurching toward yet another vaguely expected and somewhat ill-defined nostrum.*

The pattern replays itself time and again: first the news, followed by the rulemaking proposal, which is then given a brief period for public acquiescence or remonstrance; and then inevitably the final rule, which is much like the initial proposal. Early on, industry associations issue a Call to Action!

Alas, when the Federal Register publishes the effective compliance date, everybody falls in line and scrambles to adjust. Sometimes, a few organizations even threaten litigation, though, when tried, litigating has not thus far brought about much satisfaction.

Exactly what is this Flat Fee debacle?

Let's take a peek at this flatland mystery.

_____________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE

DAY OF RECKONING

FLATLAND FEE

YET ANOTHER COMMITTEE

OVERVIEW AND QUESTIONNAIRE

BEFORE AND AFTER

CREDITOR-PAID COMPENSATION - BEFORE AND AFTER

CONSUMER-PAID COMPENSATION - BEFORE AND AFTER

BROKERAGE-PAID COMPENSATION - BEFORE AND AFTER

BRIEF DISCUSSION

RECAPITULATION

LIBRARY

_____________________________________

DAY OF RECKONING

On the day that the CFPB announced the Flat Fee - along with a wish list of other proposals - the New York Times explained the CFPB's position in this way:

"Bureau officials said that the rules, which were released Wednesday ahead of formal introduction this summer, would ban mortgage companies from charging origination fees that vary with the amount of the loan.

Those fees are sometimes referred to as origination points and are disclosed in a blizzard of documents and fees that most home buyers face at closing. But they can easily be confused with the upfront discount points that borrowers often pay to secure a lower interest rate."

The May 9, 2012 article came accoutered with Richard Cordray's observation that "Mortgages today often come with so many different types of fees and points that it can be hard to compare offers ... We want to bring greater transparency to the market so consumers can clearly see their options and choose the loan that is right for them."

It is not as if we did not see this coming. We did! At least those of us compliance nerds, wonkishly spending time around our own wonkish types, rubbing elbows with regulators, lobbyists, agencies officials, congressional staff, industry associations, and everything in between.

Still, keeping it real, even when we know that something unpleasant is coming, nevertheless a sense of disbelief is often provoked when the day of reckoning finally arrives.  

The Flat Fee, which I shall henceforth call the Flatland Fee, has now emerged from its gestational limbo.

FLATLAND FEE

In its announcement of May 9, 2012, wearisomely titled in the manner of a 17th century dogmatic text "CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU CONSIDERS RULES TO SIMPLIFY MORTGAGE POINTS AND FEES - Rules Would Bring Greater Transparency to the Mortgage Market" (caps in the original), the CFPB stated that its recipe for "transparency" is to:

"Ban Origination Charges that Vary with the Size of the Loan:

Brokerage firms and creditors would no longer be allowed to charge origination fees that vary with the size of the loan. These 'origination points' are easily confused with discount points. Instead, under the rules the CFPB is considering, brokerage firms and creditors would be allowed to charge only flat origination fees."

Let me broaden this statement out for you:

The CFPB will allow the consumer a choice of paying discount points in creditor-paid transactions only if: (1) the points actually result in a "minimum reduction" in the interest rate for each point paid; and (2) the lender also offers the option of a no discount point loan. (At this time, the CFPB actually provides no details for the correlation between "minimum reduction" and the interest rate.)

The CFPB would allow a consumer to pay up-front origination fees in creditor-paid transactions only if it is a flat amount that does not vary with the size of the loan (and if it is not compensation to the individual loan originator).
 

According to the CFPB, this proposal is supposed to "preserve consumers' choices while increasing transparency."

YET ANOTHER COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Dodd-Frank the CFPB must convene a small business panel, consisting of consumers and industry representatives, the purpose of which is to determine the effects of new regulations on financial institutions subject to the new requirements.

The CFPB will be sharing with these small businesses an overview of the proposals under consideration and a list of questions for input. After its review, the panel's participants are supposed to provide feedback to the panel on the proposals the CFPB is considering and suggest alternatives. At the conclusion of its review, the panel will issue a report to the CFPB that summarizes this feedback. And, from that point on, the CFPB is expected to consider the panels findings when formulating the proposed rule.

CFPB Offers A View Of Profit Sharing

The CFPB recently announced that it will update the TILA loan originator compensation rule (Rule) in July of 2012. The updated rule may cause some new concerns regarding the implementation of the current Rule or it just may actually provide some sorely needed repairs for issues, strange and otherwise, that have dogged the Rule from the very start.

One issue in particular has been fomenting all along: the FRB's interpretation of the Rule (and the interpretation informally adopted by the FDIC) regarding contributions made to retirement plans on behalf of loan originator employees. The FRB deemed such contributions to be compensation and subject to the restriction that compensation cannot be based on the terms and conditions of the loan transaction. This is because the FRB asserted that profits were considered a proxy for loan terms and conditions.

Recently, the CFPB has weighed into this matter by declaring that employers should be permitted to contribute to "Qualified Plans" out of a profit pool derived from loan originations.

So let's discuss what this all means and if this issue is really resolved! *

IN THIS ARTICLE

Profit Sharing Debacle
Contortions
Bulletin 2012-02
Interpreting the Bulletin
"Heads-Up" Regulating

Profit Sharing Debacle

Contributions to a profit sharing plan pose a significant challenge to mortgage brokers or bankers whose sole source of profitability is from the origination of loans. If the broker only brokers loans, then the income received was already subject to the restriction that it could not be based on the terms and conditions of the credit extended.

Thus, the profit sharing contribution also would not be based on the terms and conditions.

If, on the other hand, a mortgage banker funds the loans with its own money and makes a profit from a true secondary market transaction that is allowed to be dependent on the terms and conditions of the credit extended, it will be much harder to make a profit sharing contribution and effectively assert that the payment is not dependent on the terms and conditions of the credit extended.

For those entities, there might be a need to revise the 401(k) plan to make it a nondiscretionary plan so that such profits play no part in determining whether a contribution is made or the amount of the contribution.

There has been considerable debate on how or whether profit sharing plan contributions may accept compensation. If the contribution is tied to profits, and profits are tied to the origination of loans, a portion of which might be determined by the terms or conditions of the transaction originated, then the FRB asserted that no contribution could be made. This becomes particularly problematic because Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) rules generally do not allow for contributions to be made for some employees but not for other employees. Thus, this would have the effect of eliminating contributions for all employees.

So here is the debacle: In order for a lender to make the contributions for loan originators without running afoul of the Rule, it is the lender's responsibility to show that the contribution was not based on the terms and conditions of the credits extended.

Contortions

I will list just some of the contortions that loan originators have had to deal with thus far, depending on the profit sharing plan:

Plans with matching contributions: There would be no difficulty in showing the amount of the contribution was independent of the terms and conditions of the credit transaction because the amount of the contribution is based on the amount contributed by the employee.

Non-discretionary plans: Where the contributions must be made in a fixed amount irrespective of "profits," there would be a valid case that the amount of the contribution is not based on the terms and conditions of credit extended.

Discretionary non-elective or matching contributions: That are not tied directly to specific profit targets, is a more complicated issue, but could be supported by the point that all employees, mortgage originators or not, receive the same amount. In other words, no originator received compensation tied to the loan terms and conditions because others were compensated equally irrespective of loan terms and conditions.

Discretionary plan tied to specific profit targets: Would likely need to exclude the income from loan originations to avoid a challenge that the payment was based on the terms and conditions.

And, of course, any plan that sets the amount of the contribution based entirely on the income an originator generated would definitely violate the regulation. 

Bulletin 2012-02

Since the CFPB issued its April 2, 2012 CFPB Bulletin 2012-02  (Bulletin) that dealt, in part, with profit sharing, various media outlets and industry associations have applauded it for "clarifying" that the Rule does not ban loan originators from participating in employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) or 401(k) plans - so-called "Qualified Plans."

One prominent law firm provides the Bulletin's exact text, which states that "employers of loan originators may make contributions to employees' qualified profit sharing, 401(k), and stock ownership plans (qualified plans) out of a profit pool derived from loan originations."

Another highly-respected law firm issued a notice, stating the CFPB "has confirmed that Regulation Z (which implements the Truth in Lending Act) does not prohibit mortgage loan originators from participating in qualified profit-sharing 401(k) or employee stock ownership plans (Qualified Plans)."

The plain reading of the Bulletin's text seems to provide a somewhat more nuanced view!

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. 

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

LIBRARY

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