Mortgage brokers and lenders are running in a deep fog as they scramble to comply with broker and loan officer compensation rules that take effect April 1.
Brokers and loan officers have known about the guidelines outlined in the Federal Reserve's Regulation Z for months, but many firms are still tinkering with compliance plans, law firm Patton Boggs said in its recent banking report.
In fact, as the Fed reveals more about how to meet the demands of Reg Z, brokers and lenders are finding themselves in a tight race to get the right compliance structure in play before the rule takes effect.
Regulation Z is already a sore spot among mortgage brokers. The rule will change broker and loan officer compensation by conditioning pay on the amount of credit extended.
After analyzing a recent Fed webinar on the changes, Patton Boggs wrote, "Fed staff confirmed their position regarding loan originator compensation by mortgage brokers in consumer-paid transactions. Specifically, the staff has not changed their view that if a consumer pays a mortgage broker in a transaction, the broker cannot pay its loan originator employee who worked on the transaction any amount other than a standard salary or hourly wage that is not tied to the transaction."
In discussing the above dilemma, Patton Boggs said, "Fed staff suggested that the issue could be resolved by the consumer paying points to the creditor from which the creditor could pay the broker entity. In this case, the broker would be paid by the lender and could compensate its employees in accordance with their compensation plans without running afoul of the dual compensation provisions of the rule."
Another issue perplexing mortgage brokers is a Fed guideline that will prohibit brokers with branches in multiple states from applying different compensation standards in those areas.
"Many were under the impression that compensation could vary by location based on permissible factors, such as cost of living differences," Patton Boggs said. "However, the staff advised that if a broker has an office in Anytown, Ohio, for example, and an office in another area of Ohio, a creditor doing business with the broker must have the same compensation arrangements with both branches."
Write to Kerri Panchuk.
The moment the state attorneys general proposed a mortgage servicing settlement it seemed only logical that lenders and banks wouldn't like it.
The natural flow of solutions, after all, is going to require some level of back and forth.
And so the American Bankers Association recently expressed exasperation at Paul Krugman's column in The New York Times on March 13 titled Another inside job.
Written by ABA President and CEO Frank Keating, the trade group's letter to the editor of the Times is published here.
I was particularly struck by the laconic nature of the entire submission. Why would the ABA only have 174 words to say about Krugman's column on a 27-page proposal?
And what did this passage mean?
In short, there seemed to be a side of the story not being told.
And, as it turns out, there is.
HousingWire Thursday obtained a copy of the original letter sent to the editor of The New York Times.
It is nearly three times longer – 462 words – and can be viewed by clicking here.
Judge for yourself if you think the editors at The New York Times rightfully cut the letter. As an editor myself, I support whatever changes they made, knowing full well the daily challenges of the position.
However, there is a systematic dysfunction to the entire mortgage servicer redemption methodology. And though the ABA "takes on" Krugman, what really gets to the association is the proposed settlement. Or more specifically, the way in which change is going down.
Change can only be fully accepted when just. And we can only hope regulators appreciate the necessity of hedging against the unintended consequences of policy.
And that is the point, we can only hope. For this process of change is no more transparent that the dark lending systems it intends to condemn.
"The OCC diverted 30% of its resources into a horizontal review of the mortgage servicing industry, and other regulators did likewise, yet we don't know the details," said ABA executive vice president of government relations Robert Davis, who worked with Keating on drafting the letter.
In clarifying the macro reasons behind what the NYT letter means to the ABA, Davis said the issue is, inevitably, that there were varying degrees of noncompliance in mortgage servicing.
Violations were not uniform, he said, so the ABA concern is on a blanket settlement being offered as a solution without differentiation.
"Penalties should be commensurate with the degree of regulatory noncompliance and actual harm to consumers," he said.
Nonetheless, the ABA is concerned that the proposed settlement terms push many changes that have "no clear nexus to violations or consumer harm" and divert attention from state law enforcement to federal issues such as bankruptcy proceedings, Davis tells HousingWire.
"We don't want to see a result that overrides state law jurisdiction of property rights," Davis adds.
The ABA is frustrated that there is no public forum to openly discuss the needs of borrowers and banks. Four state AGs are also sounding alarms on the proposal.
The cost of mortgage origination for borrowers will begin to rise as interests rates won't remain at historic lows forever. Yet, there is nothing in the settlement that improves borrower access to credit or allows for safer lending.
The proposed settlement does, however, consolidate the power of those in charge. If nothing else the proposal blurs the lines between the judiciary, enforcement and legislative branches of government. Does mortgage servicing in the United States solve its woes from a single judge, jury and executioner?
"There should be clear national standards, and one of these is that servicers have to be prepared to comply with all state law requirements," Davis warned. "The solution can't be shipped wholesale to Washington, D.C., for social engineering."
And that is what the ABA really meant in its letter to The New York Times.
Write to Jacob Gaffney.
Follow him on Twitter @JacobGaffney.
Tags: American Bankers Association, mortgage servicing settlement, New York Times, Paul Krugman, state attorneys general
Posted in Commentary, Jacob Gaffney, Voices | No Comments »