CFPB’s Mortgage Rules for Readiness

The just released 2013 CFPB Dodd-Frank Mortgage Rules Readiness Guide (Guide) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) provides, finally, a set of criteria and preparation procedures for residential mortgage lenders and originators. It is Version 1.0 and, like previously issued guides and manuals, the CFPB will update the Guide periodically, using the results from its field examinations to further enhance the audit methodologies.

Note that it is called a “Readiness Guide.” Such documents are not meant to be, and are not, conclusive. Such guides are expected to be sign posts leading the way, a means by which a company may learn of the priorities and exigencies of a regulator’s oversight functions. In other words, as the Guide itself declaims: “The Guide summarizes the mortgage rules finalized by the CFPB in January 2013, but it is not a substitute for the rules.”

To put a finer point on the use of the Guide, please always remember that only the rules and their official interpretations can provide complete and definitive information regarding their requirements.*
 
These rules can be found at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/regulatory-implementation/.

Each rule in the Guide also includes a hyperlink with additional information, which includes Small Entity Compliance Guides that may make the rule easier to digest. There are links to videos outlining the main elements of the rule. Furthermore, a convenient hyperlink compendium structure is embedded in the Guide, so that the rule headings are themselves hyperlinks directing the reader to the rule-specific CFPB website page.

_________________________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE

Sections of the Guide

Summary of the Rules

Questionnaire

Library

___________________________________________________________________

SECTIONS OF THE GUIDE

The Guide consists of the following sections:

Part I: Summary of the Rules
Part II: Readiness Questionnaire
Part III: Frequently Asked Questions
Part IV: Tools

Part I (Summary of the Rules) contains an outline of the eight final rules issued in January 2013 concerning mortgage markets in the United States pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (2013 Title XIV Final Rules).

The rules amend several existing regulations, including Regulation Z, X, and B. Throughout the year, CFPB expects to provide updates to the rules where necessary. Updates will be posted, along with summaries of the changes, on the regulatory implementation CFPB webpage.

The questionnaire in Part II (Readiness Questionnaire) is '”not intended” to encompass all details of a comprehensive compliance program. This should not be interpreted to mean that the questionnaire is a replacement for the examination procedures or regulations. It is intended to serve as a guide in preparing for implementation of the mortgage rules and in performing a self-assessment. Thus, the questionnaire should be used as a self-assessment in determining a company’s progress towards compliance with the new mortgage rules. The questionnaire contains twenty-nine self-assessment questions and numerous subsections. Do not confuse the questionnaire with a proxy examination tool: it will not be added to the Examination Manual. The CFPB views the questionnaire as a “voluntary guide” for preparation. I have no doubt that it will be used by management in their discussions with examiners. The extent of those discussions may be determined by the institution’s size, products offered, risk mitigation, risk profiles, and other factors, such as the overall strength of the compliance management system.

Part III (Frequently Asked Questions) consist of only a two-page set of questions and answers, most of them quite obvious, both in the asking and the answering. Perhaps the most interesting ‘question and answer’ set is this one:

Question: Will the CFPB coordinate and communicate supervisory activities with other regulatory agencies?

Answer: In accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act and its routine practice, the CFPB will coordinate with other regulators. Regulators will communicate examination plans and findings with each other. When appropriate, the regulators will coordinate examination efforts in order to reduce regulatory burden.

Although the CFPB gave a vaguely worded answer, let’s put it this way: the integration of information between the state banking departments and the CFPB and, where applicable, other state and federal agencies, has become (or is becoming) seamless.

Finally, Part IV (Tools) is a resource directly, commonly used on many websites to direct the reader to other website locations of interest. This section hosts many hyperlinks, seventeen in total, that cover most of the rules and regulations that the CFPB has promulgated relating to mortgage compliance.

___________________________________________________________________

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.

CFPB and FTC: Warning Letters - Misleading Advertisements

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), has issued warning letters to twelve mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers advising them to remove or revise misleading advertisements. The warnings concern advertisements that target veterans, seniors, and other consumers.*

Additionally, the CFPB announced that it has begun formal investigations of six companies believed to have committed more serious violations of the law.

After reviewing hundreds of mortgage advertisements, the FTC staff has also sent warning letters to twenty companies, warning them that their ads may be deceptive. The FTC sent its warning letters to real estate agents, home builders, and lead generators, urging them to review their advertisements for compliance with the Mortgage Acts and Practices Advertising Rule and the FTC Act.

The collaboration between the CFPB and the FTC are characterized as a "sweep" - a review conducted by these agencies of about 800 "randomly selected mortgage-related ads across the country, including ads for mortgage loans, refinancing, and reverse mortgages." The agencies looked at ads in newspapers, on the Internet, and from mail solicitations, and advertisements that were the subject of consumer complaints.

I really can't emphasize enough how important it is to control all the advertising your firm publishes - and I mean advertisements in any media. Just adopting a policy and procedure is insufficient.

In my view, several components must be included in advertising compliance:

a formally adopted policy and procedure;

an advertising manual that is signed for and attested to by the employee;

checklists, model forms, ad formats, and authorizations;

an easy reference guide for employees;

periodic training;

and auditing.

If you are not implementing at least these risk management practices, you are certainly falling short of the controls you need to manage the regulatory challenges posed in advertising of mortgage loan products.

______________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE

The Sweep
The Rule
The Warning
The Remedy

______________________________________________________

The Sweep

The following problems were identified by the sweep:

Potential misrepresentations about government affiliation.
For example, some of the ads for mortgage products contained official-looking seals or logos, or have other characteristics that may be interpreted by consumers as indicating a government affiliation (i.e., advertisements containing statements, images, symbols, and abbreviations suggesting that an advertiser is affiliated with a government agency).

Potentially inaccurate information about interest rates.For example, some ads promoted low rates that may have misled consumers about the terms of the product actually offered. These are advertisements offering a very low “fixed” mortgage rate, without discussing significant loan terms (i.e., advertisements “guaranteeing” approval and offering very low monthly payments, without discussing significant conditions on these offers).

Potentially misleading statements concerning the costs of reverse mortgages.For example, some ads for reverse mortgage products claimed that a consumer will have no payments in connection with the product, even though consumers with a reverse mortgage are commonly required to continue to make monthly or other periodic tax or insurance payments, and may risk default if the payments aren’t made.

Potential misrepresentations about the amount of cash or credit available to a consumer.For example, some ads contained a mock check and/or suggested that a consumer has been pre-approved to receive a certain amount of money in connection with refinancing their mortgage or taking out a reverse mortgage, when a number of additional steps would customarily need to be completed before the consumer would qualify for the loan.

____________________________________

The Rule

The Mortgage Acts and Practices Advertising Rule ("MAP-AD Rule" or "MAP Rule"), known as Regulation N since rulemaking authority for it transferred from the FTC to the CFPB, is applied to advertising compliance relating to mortgage loan products. (We have discussed the MAP Rule previously. See, for instance, our September 2, 2011 newsletter, FTC: Adopts Mortgage Advertising Rule.)

The MAP Rule prohibits material misrepresentations in advertising or any other commercial communication regarding consumer mortgages. The FTC and the CFPB share enforcement authority over non-bank mortgage advertisers such as mortgage lenders, brokers, servicers, and advertising agencies. Mortgage advertisers that violate the MAP Rule may be required to pay civil penalties. HUD mortgagees may be subject to additional sanctions by the Mortgagee Review Board.

The MAP Rule was issued as a Final Rule by the FTC on July 22, 2011 (the day after the CFPB received its enumerated authorities) and given the compliance effective date of August 19, 2011. On July 21, 2011, the Commission’s rulemaking authority for the MAP Rule transferred to the CFPB, but the FTC, the CFPB, and the states all have authority to enforce the MAP Rule.

It applies to all entities within the FTC’s jurisdiction that advertise mortgages - mortgage lenders, brokers, and servicers; real estate agents and brokers; advertising agencies; home builders; lead generators; rate aggregators; and others. The MAP Rule, however, does not cover banks, thrifts, federal credit unions, and other entities that are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The MAP Rule lists 19 examples of prohibited deceptive claims, including misrepresentations about the:   

- existence, nature, or amount of fees or costs to the consumer associated with the mortgage;

- terms, amounts, payments, or other requirements relating to taxes or insurance associated with the mortgage;

- variability of interest, payments, or other terms of the mortgage;

- type of mortgage offered;

- source of an advertisement or other commercial communication; and

- consumer’s ability or likelihood of obtaining a refinancing or modification of a mortgage or any of its terms.

CFPB: Mortgage Originator Violations

Yesterday, I outlined for you the features of the CFPB's requisites of a Compliance Management System (CMS). My observations were based on the CFPB's newsletter, entitled Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2012, an issuance to the public and the financial services industry about its examination program, including the concerns that it finds during the course of its completed work, and the remedies that it has obtained for consumers who have suffered financial or other harm.

There are other important areas covered in the newsletter that I would now like to briefly discuss: 

Violations relating to Credit Reporting, and

Violations by Mortgage Originators

Fair Lending Compliance 

These subjects are very nuanced and complex, involving many aspects of regulatory compliance mandates. Necessarily, my remarks will be limited to the kinds of observations that the CFPB has indicated as principal concerns with respect to these matters.

_____________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE

Violations relating to Credit Reporting

Violations by Mortgage Originators

Fair Lending Compliance

Library

_____________________________________________________

Violations relating to Credit Reporting

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (the FCRA) regulates the collection, use, and dissemination of consumer report information, and promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information held by the nation’s credit bureaus.

As you many know, the CFPB examines financial institutions for their compliance with the FCRA’s requirements for handling consumers’ credit information. Among other things, the FCRA and its implementing regulation, Regulation V, generally require entities that provide consumer information to credit bureaus to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the consumer information they furnish to these entities.

A party’s failure to comply with the FCRA may cause significant consumer harm.

According to the CFPB's most recent announcement on its examination findings, its examiners have discovered one or more instances in which a financial institution’s employees did not have sufficient training or familiarity with the requirements of the FCRA to implement it properly.

Such deficiencies resulted in a failure implement the following actions:

- Communicate appropriate and accurate account information to the credit bureaus.

- Indicate when account information had been disputed by consumers.

- Determine whether disputes had been fully investigated.

Findings by the CFPB noted that companies were unaware of the potential and actual violations of the FCRA, and, therefore, they repeatedly failed to respond to communications from consumers about their accounts.

The remedial actions mandated by the CFPB included (1) implementing procedures for properly reporting consumer credit disputes to all credit bureaus, (2) taking action on all disputes reported directly to the financial institution and correcting errors where appropriate, and (3) deleting information regarding customers, as appropriate, upon completion of their credit dispute investigations.

_________________________________

Violations by Mortgage Originators

CFPB examiners have found significant violations of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Truth in Lending Act (TILA).

Violations under RESPA have included failures to make proper and complete disclosures to consumers of costs and other terms of a transaction due to inadequate or improper completion of the Good Faith Estimate and the HUD-1 settlement statement.

Violations under TILA have included failures to provide accurate interest rate disclosures, and payment amounts and schedules, as well as disclosures regarding late payments, security interests, and assumption policies.

One aspect of the CFPB's examination, it should be mentioned, is to review a company's policies and procedures with respect to RESPA and TILA. Those financial institutions that do not maintain an accurate and current set of such policy statements should expect to receive an adverse finding.

Specifically, where financial institutions have violated RESPA and/or TILA, they have been directed to implement appropriate policies, procedures, and monitoring to prevent recurrence of the violations, and to ensure that any third-party vendors, including mortgage brokers, are identified and included in the company’s oversight program. The relevant policies and procedures should provide guidelines to ensure that proper Good Faith Estimate and HUD-1 disclosures are provided to consumers, and that consumers are not improperly charged. In fact, where appropriate, the CFPB has actually directed that consumers receive a corrected HUD-1, and, just as in state banking examinations, where customers are improperly charged, a financial institution will be directed to provide reimbursement to the consumer.

_________________________________

Fair Lending Compliance

Another area of concern is compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), and its implementing regulation, Regulation C.

In our newsletter yesterday, I discussed deficiencies of fair lending compliance programs and some "common features" of well developed programs. The CFPB utilizes HMDA data in the course of its review of such programs, and it may seek corrective action or relief, as appropriate, in cases that demonstrate fair lending violations.

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.

CFPB Proposes New Servicing Rules - RESPA

Recently, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) issued proposed rules (Proposal) to amend Regulation X, which implements the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the official interpretation of the regulation.

The proposed amendments implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) provisions regarding mortgage loan servicing. Specifically, this proposal requests comment regarding proposed additions to Regulation X to address seven servicer obligations:

1) Correct errors asserted by mortgage loan borrowers; 

2) Provide information requested by mortgage loan borrowers;

3) Ensure that a reasonable basis exists to obtain force-placed insurance;

4) Establish reasonable information management policies and procedures;

5) Provide information about mortgage loss mitigation options to delinquent borrowers;

6) Provide delinquent borrowers access to servicer personnel with continuity of contact about the borrower's mortgage loan account; and

7) Evaluate borrowers' applications for available loss mitigation options.

The Proposal would modify and streamline certain existing servicing-related provisions of Regulation X. For instance, it would revise provisions relating to:

1) A mortgage servicer's obligation to provide disclosures to borrowers in connection with a transfer of mortgage servicing, and
2) A mortgage servicer's obligation to manage escrow accounts (including the obligation to advance funds to an escrow account to maintain insurance coverage and to return amounts in an escrow account to a borrower upon payment in full of a mortgage loan).

The Bureau proposes 'companion' regulations implementing amendments to the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) in Regulation Z (the 2012 TILA Servicing Proposal). We will provide an outline of the 2012 TILA Servicing Proposal in a subsequent newsletter.

Comments Due: On or before October 9, 2012.

____________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE

Scope

Nine Major Topics

Small Servicers

Library

____________________________________________________

Scope

• The Proposal generally applies to closed-end mortgage loans, with certain exceptions.

• Under the Proposal, open-end lines of credit and certain other loans, such as construction loans and business-purpose loans, are excluded.

• Under the 2012 TILA Servicing Proposal, the periodic statement and adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), disclosure provisions apply only to closed-end mortgage loans, but the prompt crediting and payoff statement provisions apply both to open-end and closed-end mortgage loans.

• Reverse mortgages and timeshares are excluded from the periodic statement requirement, and certain construction loans are excluded from the ARM disclosure requirements.

• The Bureau is seeking comment on whether to exempt small servicers from certain requirements or modify certain requirements for small servicers.

Nine Major Topics

The Proposal covers nine major topics, as follows:
   
1. Periodic billing statements.

Dodd-Frank generally mandates that servicers of closed-end residential mortgage loans (other than reverse mortgages) must send a periodic statement for each billing cycle. These statements must meet the timing, form, and content requirements provided for in the rule. The Proposal contains sample forms that servicers could use.

The periodic statement requirement generally would not apply for fixed-rate loans if the servicer provides a coupon book, so long as the coupon book contains certain information specified in the rule and certain other information is made available to the consumer. The proposal also includes an exception for small servicers that service 1000 or fewer mortgage loans and service only mortgage loans that they originated or own.
   
2. Adjustable-rate mortgage interest-rate adjustment notices.

Servicers would have to provide a consumer whose mortgage has an adjustable rate with a notice 60 to 120 days before an adjustment which causes the payment to change. The servicer would also have to provide an earlier notice 210 to 240 days prior to the first rate adjustment. This first notice may contain an estimate of the rate and payment change. Other than this initial notice, servicers would no longer be required to provide an annual notice if a rate adjustment does not result in an increase in the monthly payment. The Proposal contains model and sample forms that servicers could use.
   
3. Prompt payment crediting and payoff payments.

As required by Dodd-Frank, servicers must promptly credit payments from borrowers, generally on the day of receipt. If a servicer receives a payment that is less than a full contractual payment, the payment may be held in a suspense account. When the amount in the suspense account covers a full installment of principal, interest, and escrow (if applicable), the Proposal would require the servicer to apply the funds to the oldest outstanding payment owed. A servicer also would be required to send an accurate payoff balance to a consumer no later than seven business days after receipt of a written request from the borrower for such information.

Disclosure Integration, High Cost, and Counseling

On July 9, 2012, the CFPB issued its proposed integration of RESPA and TILA disclosures into the "integrated" forms, entitled "Loan Estimate" and "Closing Disclosure". These new forms are derived from the Good Faith Estimate (GFE), the Truth-in-Lending (TIL) Disclosure, and the HUD-1/1A Settlement Statement. This assemblage has been duly dubbed with the euphemism "integration".

Excluded from the forthcoming integration are reverse mortgages, home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), chattel dwelling loans, and de minimis originations consisting of loans made by creditors who make five or fewer otherwise covered loans per year.

I have covered the process of constructing these forms in several newsletters and articles, including HERE, and HERE.*

The CFPB is not expecting to finalize the integration before the end of this year. Comments are due November 6, 2012.

However, there is a comment deadline of September 7, 2012 - which will lead to rulemaking before January 2013 - regarding the extent to which the rule applies to loans previously exempted from RESPA or TILA and the further redefining of the term “finance charge” to include most costs associated with residential mortgage loans.

By its own admission, the CFPB has stated that the proposal to "broaden" the definition of a "finance charge" by adopting certain adjustments or accommodations in its HOEPA implementing regulations under Regulation Z, would "cause more loans to exceed the APR and points and fees triggers and be classified as high-cost mortgages under HOEPA."

The CFPB has also set forth proposed rules to implement Dodd-Frank amendments regarding high-cost mortgages and also to provide homeownership counseling provisions that would affect mortgage lending generally (with no exclusion for HELOCs).

The implications of these rules, taken together, are far reaching. I would suggest that you visit our Library for further information.

___________________________________________________

IN THIS ARTICLE

“Loan Estimate” and “Closing Disclosure”

Integration

High-Cost Mortgages

Homeownership Counseling

Library

___________________________________________________

“Loan Estimate” and “Closing Disclosure”

• The Loan Estimate replaces the GFE and early TIL, while the Closing Disclosure replaces the HUD-1/1A and final TIL.

• HUD's Special Information Booklet will still be required.

• The CFPB's proposal would combine five pages (seven if typical appraisal and servicing disclosures were to be counted) of TILA/RESPA data into a three-page Loan Estimate, not counting the written list of available providers that must be separately provided if the creditor allows a consumer to shop for a settlement service.

• The Closing Disclosure is five pages.

Integration

The integration not only provides an entirely new format but also reconciles certain existing differences between Regulation X, the implementing regulation of RESPA and Regulation Z, the implementing regulation of TILA.

Highlights

• Redefines the term “application” by deleting the 7th component from the definition adopted by HUD, as outlined in its New RESPA Rule FAQs, as “any other information deemed necessary by the loan originator.”

• Alters the coverage of the disclosure requirements so they would apply to home loans, except for the aforementioned exemptions.

• Changes the timing and responsibility rules for providing closing disclosures.

• Prohibits the collection of any fees other than a credit report fee, until the Loan Estimate has been received, as provided by Regulation X, instead of the broader parameter of the “credit history” fee set forth in Regulation Z.

• Prohibits the collection of any fees other than a credit report fee, until the consumer has indicated “an intent to proceed with the loan,” as specified by the Regulation X amendments of January 2010.

• Requires the credit report fee to be accurately described as a credit report fee, not as an “application fee.”

• Allows preliminary estimates only if they are clearly labeled as not the Loan Estimate.

• Continues requiring the Regulation X Special Information Booklet, and possibly incorporating material from the Regulation Z's ARM (CHARM) booklet.

• Prohibits a creditor from requiring a consumer to verify any information the consumer provided with the application (per Regulation X).

• Incorporates the disclosure tolerances of Regulation X, modified to extend the zero tolerance to fees paid to affiliate providers and providers for whom a consumer cannot shop.

• Adjusts Regulation X limitations on revising Loan Estimates, including the definition of “changed circumstances.”

• Allows a waiver of waiting periods in the event of bona fide personal emergencies.

• Permits price averaging.

• Requires providing certain Closing Disclosures to the seller, if a seller is a party to the transaction.

• Requires close communication and cooperation between mortgage brokers and settlement agents who may provide disclosures, in order to ensure accurate disclosure.

• Prohibits providing disclosures of both estimated and actual costs at the same time (viz., as revised Loan Estimate and a Closing Disclosure).

• Requires the retention of evidence of compliance (i.e., permitting electronic file retention) for three years for Loan Estimates and five years for Closing Disclosures.

• Requires states with existing exemptions from TILA (i.e., Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) to conform their laws if they wish to retain their exemptions.

High-Cost Mortgages

• Balloon payments would largely be banned, and creditors would be prohibited from charging prepayment penalties and financing points and fees.

• Late fees would be restricted to four percent of the payment that is past due, fees for providing payoff statements would be restricted, and fees for loan modification or loan deferral would be banned.
  

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!

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

 

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau     

Mortgage Disclosures - Models
Fixed and Adjustable  
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.

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.

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

LIBRARY

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Supervision and Examination Manual 

Version 1.0 

Announcement

October 13, 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

 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request 

Generic Clearance for Research 

in Development of Disclosure Forms

 

September 26, 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. 

ABILITY-TO-REPAY: REGULATING OR UNDERWRITING? (Part II)

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. 

ABILITY-TO-REPAY: REGULATING OR UNDERWRITING? (Part II)