Author Archives: David Reiss

Reiss on New Mortgage Regime

Posted on by

Loans.org quoted me in a story, CFPB Rules Reiterate Current and Future Lending Practices. It reads in part,

David Reiss, professor of law at the Brooklyn Law School, said there could be other long-term effects due to this high DTI ratio since the lending rules will likely remain for several decades.

If the rules remain intact, the high DTI number can still be lowered at a later time. For instance, if few defaults occur when the bar is set at 43 percent, the limit might increase. Conversely, if a large number of defaults occur, the limit will decrease even further.

Reiss hopes that the agencies overseeing the rule will make these changes based on empirical evidence.

“I’m hopeful that regulation in this area will be numbers driven,” he said.

Despite the wording, Bill Parker, senior loan officer at Gencor Mortgage, said that lenders are technically “not required to ensure borrowers can repay their loans.” He said lenders are legally required to make a “good faith effort” for reviewing documents and facts about the borrower and indicating if he or she can repay the debt.

“If they do so, following the directives of the CFPB, then they are protected against suit by said borrower in the future,” Parker said. “If they can’t prove they investigated as required, then they lose the Safe Harbor and have to prove the borrower has not suffered harm because of this.”

The statute of limitations for the CFPB law is three years from the start of loan payments. After that time period, the lender is no longer required to provide evidence of loan compliance.

Even though the amendment could impact the current lending market, experts told loans.org that the CFPB’s standards will make a greater impact on the future of the housing industry.

Reiss believes that the stricter rules will create a sustainable lending market.

Individual Liability for RMBS Misrepresentations

Posted on by

Judge Cote (SDNY) issued an Opinion and Order in Federal Housing Finance Agency v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc, et al., 11-cv-06201 (Dec. 10, 2013).  The opinion relates to the potential liability of individuals who signed various documents containing alleged misrepresentations that were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These misrepresentations, if true, may violate the Securities Act of 1933. Individuals who signed off on the alleged misrepresentations could be liable as “control persons” or other key individuals under the Act. The alleged misrepresentations were contained in offering materials for RMBS purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The issue in the case is a pretty technical one: “the motion requires the Court to decide whether the SEC radically altered Section 11 liability for individuals who sign registration statements in the context of the shelf registration process when the SEC promulgated Rule 430B in 2005.” (5) Less technically, the motion requires that the Court decide the scope of potential liability for individuals for misrepresentations made in documents that they DID NOT sign that were supplemental to documents that they DID sign. The Court found that individuals could be held liable for such misrepresentations as had been the case before Rule430B had been promulgated.

I am not a securities law expert, so I assume that Judge Cote is right in stating that the defendants were arguing for a radical change to  the Securities Act of 1933 liability regime. I am also on the record in support of liability for individuals who are responsible for material aspects of the financial crisis. But I have also expressed concern about incredibly broad liability provisions. As a non-expert in this area, I was surprised that individuals could be held liable for misrepresentations that were made after they signed off on the preliminary documentation for securitizations.

Battle of the Mortgage Experts

Posted on by

Judge Saris of the United States District Court (D. Mass.) issued a Memorandum and Order in Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Residential Funding Company, et al., No. 11-30035-PBS (Dec. 9, 2013). The opinion addresses a battle of statistical experts over the proper way to sample some of the hundreds of thousands of mortgages at issue in this litigation.

Mass Mutual, the plaintiff, alleges that the defendants misrepresented material aspects of many of those mortgages. To prove this, Mass Mutual intends to “reunderwrite” about 3.5% of loans by reviewing the “original loan file to determine whether  it was originated in accordance with applicable standards.” (3) . More particularly, Mass Mutual alleged that

the defendants marketed the [RMBS] certificates with representations that the loans backing the securities were underwritten in accordance with prudent underwriting standards and the underlying properties were appraised in accordance with sound appraisal standards, in order to ensure that the borrower could repay the loan and to decrease the risk of default. Plaintiff asserts that the loans underlying each [loan pool] were, in reality, far riskier than represented. Plaintiff also alleges that the defendants knowingly reported false loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios, and in the case of defendant HSBC, inaccurate owner-occupancy rates for underlying properties. The defendants deny that they made any material misrepresentations in the marketing and sale of the certificates. (4)

The Court stated that while the defendants had identified various methodological errors that would render the report of Mass Mutual’s expert unreliable, similar challenges had failed in four other RMBS litigations. The Court ultimately denied the defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert.

A body of law about expert evaluation of misrepresentations in securitization is slowly developing as cases are moving from the motion to dismiss stage to the pretrial discovery phase. This will have broader significance than just securitization litigation, but I find it particularly interesting to watch experts attempt to reduce “questions of misrepresentation” regarding RMBS to yes/no answers. (15) Such attempts to quantify misrepresentation will be useful to resolve cases such as this but also to regulators and researchers down the line.

Qualified Mortgages and The Community Reinvestment Act

Posted on by

Regulators issued an Interagency Statement on Supervisory Approach for Qualified and Non-Qualified Mortgage Loans relating to the interaction between the QM rules and Community Reinvestment Act enforcement. This statement complements a similar rule issued in October that addressed the interaction between the QM rules and fair lending enforcement.

The statement acknowledges that lenders are still trying to figure out their way around the new mortgage rules (QM & ATR) that will go into effect in January. The agencies state that “the requirements of the Bureau’s Ability-to-Repay Rule and CRA are compatible. Accordingly, the agencies that conduct CRA evaluations do not anticipate that institutions’ decision to originate only QMs, absent other factors, would adversely affect their CRA evaluations.” (2)

This is important for lenders who intend to only originate plain vanilla QMs. There have been concerns that doing so may result in comparatively few mortgages being CRA-eligible. It seems eminently reasonable that lenders not find themselves between a CRA rock and a QM hard place if they decide to go the QM-only route. That being said, it will be important to continue to monitor whether low- and moderate-income neighborhoods are receiving sufficient amounts of mortgage credit. Given that major lenders are likely to originate non-QM products, this may not be a problem. But we will have to see how the non-QM sector develops next year before we can know for sure.

A Shared Appreciation for Underwater Mortgages

Posted on by

New York State’s Department of Financial Services has proposed a rule that would allow for “shared appreciation” of a property’s value if an underwater loan is refinanced. The Department states that this will provide a helpful option for underwater homeowners facing foreclosure. If a homeowner were to take a shared appreciation mortgage, he or she would get a principal reduction (and thus lower monthly payments) in exchange for giving up as much as fifty percent of the increase in the home’s value, payable when the property is sold or the mortgage is satisfied.

The precise formula for the holder of the mortgage is as follows:

The Holder’s share of the Appreciation in Market Value shall be limited to the lesser of:

1. The amount of the reduction in principal (deferred principal), plus interest on such amount calculated from the date of the Shared Appreciation       Agreement to the date of payment based on a rate that is applicable to the Modified Mortgage Loan; or

2. Fifty percent of the amount of Appreciation in Market Value. Section 82-2.6(b).

The principal balance of a shared appreciation mortgage “shall be no greater than: (i) an amount which when combined with other modification factors, such as lower interest rate or term extension, results in monthly payments that are 31% or less of the Mortgagor’s DTI; or (ii) 100% of the Appraised Value.” Section 82-2.11(i). The proposed regulation contains mandatory disclosures for the homeowner, including some examples of how a shared appreciation mortgage can work.

How does this all play out for the homeowner? We should note that similarly situated homeowners can be treated differently in a variety of ways. Here are a few examples. First, two similarly situated homeowners with different incomes can receive different principal balances because of the DTI limitation contained in section 82-2.11(i). Second, similarly situated homeowners can receive different principal balances because their houses appraise for different amounts. And third, different rates of appreciation of homes can make two similarly situated homeowners give up very different absolute dollars in appreciated value.

All of this is to say that homeowners will have to consider many variables in order to evaluate whether a share appreciation mortgage is a good option for them. They should also know that what is a good deal for one homeowner may not be a good deal for a similarly situated one. It is unlikely that the mandatory disclosures will be sufficient to explain this to them in all of its complexity. It is not even clear that loan counselors could do a great job with this either.

I am not arguing that the share appreciation mortgage is a bad innovation. But I do think that lenders will be able evaluate when offering one is a good deal for them while homeowners may have trouble evaluating when accepting one is a good deal on their end. I would guess that many may take one for non-economic reasons — I want to keep my home — and just take their chances as to how it all will play out financially.

More on Misrepresentation

Posted on by

NY Supreme Court Justice Schweitzer (NY County) issued a Decision and Order on a motion to dismiss in HSH Nordbank AG, et al., v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., No. 652991/12 (Nov. 26, 2013) that builds on the NY jurisprudence of RMBS misrepresentation. The decision notes that “The gravamen of the complaint is that Goldman Sachs knew that” its metrics and representations regarding various RMBS “were false, but did not alert Nordbank.” (2) In particular,

Nordbank alleges that Goldman Sachs knew that loan originators had systematically abandoned underwriting guidelines described in the Offering Materials. It alleges that Goldman Sachs knowingly reported false credit ratings, owner-occupancy percentages, appraisal amounts, and loan-to-value ratios. It alleges that although Goldman Sachs represented otherwise in the Offering Materials, Goldman Sachs never intended to properly effectuate transfer of the underlying notes and mortgages that collateralized the Certificates. (2)

The Court found that Nordbank “sufficiently alleged that Goldman Sachs had knowledge that originators were deliberately inflating appraisal values to artificially obtain understated CLTV ratios that corresponded with lower risk.” (9) As a result, “the complaint sufficiently describes actionable misrepresentations regarding appraisal values, loan-to-value ratios, and owner-occupancy rates.” (9)

Nordbank also alleged

that it has suffered losses totaling more than $1.5 billion as a result of the alleged misrepresentations regarding the loans’ conformity with originators’ underwriting guidelines. Specifically, Nordbank alleges that it has been unable to transfer notes and mortgages that have declined in value because of the poor quality of the underlying loans. The representations at issue allegedly resulted in higher rates of default, an impaired ability to obtain forecloses, and ultimately, a lower cash flow to Certificate-holders like Nordbank. Because Nordbank has sufficiently alleged a chain of causation leading from the alleged abandonment of underwriting standards to a decline in the market value of the Certificates, the complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to allege lost causation. (20)

As this decision was on a motion to dismiss, none of these findings result in actual liability for Goldman Sachs, but they do provide a road map for what liability could look like.  As I have noted in the past, it will be interesting to see how this body of law will affect the securitization process going forward.

Reiss on Predatory Online Lending

Posted on by

E-Commerce Times quoted me in CFPB Suit Targets Predatory Online Lending Practices. It reads in part:

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau this week put online finance companies on notice that it will not overlook them merely because they operate in cyberspace. Specifically, the bureau sued CashCall for collecting money consumers allegedly did not owe.  In its suit, the bureau charged that CashCall and its affiliates engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, including illegally debiting consumer checking accounts for loans that were void.

CashCall and the associated companies are reportedly owned by J. Paul Reddam, a race-horse owner and philosophy professor-turned-businessman.

The Background

Beginning in late 2009, CashCall and its subsidiary, WS Funding, entered into an arrangement with online lender Western Sky Financial, according to the CFPB. Western Sky Financial has asserted that the laws in the state in which it is based — South Dakota — did not apply to it because it was based on an Indian reservation and owned by a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

The CFPB maintains Western Sky still must comply with state laws when it makes loans over the Internet to people in other states.

The loans ranged from US$850 to $10,000 and came with upfront fees, lengthy repayment terms and annual interest rates from nearly 90 percent to 343 percent, the CFPB said. Many of the loan agreements allowed payments to be debited directly from the borrower’s bank account.

By September 2013, Western Sky had become the subject of several states’ investigations and court actions, and it began to shut down its business. CashCall and its collection agency, Delbert Services, continued to take monthly installment payments from consumers’ bank accounts or otherwise sought to collect money from borrowers.

After its own investigation, the bureau concluded that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps, or both, in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and North Carolina, meaning the consumers did not owe that money that was being collected.

As part of its suit, the CFPB is seeking monetary relief, damages, and civil penalties.

The CFPB did not respond to our request for further details.

*     *     *

‘Particularly Weak’

 

While there might not be much controversy over the CFPB’s suit against an online lender, CashCall is certainly defending itself using other arguments.

Clearly, the action falls within the CFPB’s broad mission of protecting consumers from predatory behaviors in the financial services industry, asserted David Reiss, a professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School.

However, CashCall’s attorneys, Neil Barofsky and Katya Jestin, have said that the CFPB does not have a mandate to impose rate caps.

“Of all of CashCall’s arguments, this one seems particularly weak,” Reiss concluded, “as the CFPB is just seeking to enforce existing state laws that have been allegedly violated across the country.”