Tag Archives: CFPB

CFPB Mortgage Highlights Fall ’15

Posted on by

Mike Licht

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its Fall 2015 Supervisory Highlights. In the context of mortgage origination, the CFPB found that

supervised entities, in general, effectively implemented and demonstrated compliance with the rule changes, there were instances of non-compliance with certain [rules] . . .. There were also findings of violations of disclosure requirements pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), implemented by Regulation X; the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), implemented by Regulation Z; and consumer financial privacy rules, implemented by Regulation P. (9, footnotes and sources omitted).

Specifically, it found that one or more entities failed to

  • “fully comply with the requirement that charges at settlement not exceed amounts on the good faith estimate by more than specified tolerances.” (10)
  • comply with the regulations governing HUD-1 settlement statements because of fees on the HUD-1 did match those on invoices; improper calculations on the HUD-1; and fees charged for services that were not provided, among other things.
  • provide required disclosures.
  • reimburse borrowers for understated APRs and finance charges, as required by Regulation Z.

In the context of mortgage servicing, the CFPB found that while it

continues to be concerned about the range of legal violations identified at various mortgage servicers, it also recognizes efforts made by certain servicers to develop an adequate compliance position through increased resources devoted to compliance. . . . Supervision continues to see that the inadequacies of outdated or deficient systems pose considerable compliance risk for mortgage servicers, and that improvements and investments in these systems can be essential to achieving an adequate compliance position. (15)

This is all well and good, but as I have noted before, it is hard to estimate how much of a problem exists from such a report — one or more entities did this, we are concerned about a range of legal violations of that . . .. I understand that the CFPB’s primary audience for this report are CFPB-supervised entities concerned with the CFPB’s regulatory focus, but this approach barely rises to the level of anecdote for the rest of us.

Monday’s Adjudication Roundup

Posted on by

Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Update

Posted on by
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has finalized a Rule to expand reporting requirements imposed upon financial institutions under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Dodd-Frank included a mandate directing the CFPB to collect metrics to allow, among other things, a better understanding of the mortgage market, quicker identification of trends, and spotting of discriminatory patterns and practices. The CFPB also hopes to use the data to avoid some of the mistakes in the mortgage market which led to the Financial Crisis.  The CFPB also has a site containing resources to help financial institutions comply.
  • CFPB has released the prepared remarks of Director Richard Corday, which he delivered before the Mortgage Bankers Association’s Annual Convention. In discussing the new agency’s work since Dodd-Frank, Corday asserted that the CFPB has worked hard to create a “set of rules that protect prospective homebuyers in a manner that never existed in the past, while supporting responsible lenders against those who led a race to the bottom in underwriting standards.  We now have a system in place that consumers can trust in a way they could not trust in the marketplace a decade ago.”
  • The Terwilliger Foundation hosted a Housing Summit in New Hampshire where Presidential Hopefuls, including, among others: Martin O’Malley, Chris Christie, George Pataki), Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul.  The Enterprise Community Partners Blog has a great piece which describes the affordable housing policy proposals of the various candidates. 

Kickbacks in Residential Transactions

Posted on by

Flazingo Photos

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued Compliance Bulletin 2015-05, RESPA Compliance and Marketing Servicing Agreements. The Bulletin opens,

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau) issues this compliance bulletin to remind participants in the mortgage industry of the prohibition on kickbacks and referral fees under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (12 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.) and describe the substantial risks posed by entering into marketing services agreements (MSAs). The Bureau has received numerous inquiries and whistleblower tips from industry participants describing the harm that can stem from the use of MSAs, but has not received similar input suggesting the use of those agreements benefits either consumers or industry. Based on the Bureau’s investigative efforts, it appears that many MSAs are designed to evade RESPA’s prohibition on the payment and acceptance of kickbacks and referral fees. This bulletin provides an overview of RESPA’s prohibitions against kickbacks and unearned fees and general information on MSAs, describes examples of market behavior gleaned from CFPB’s enforcement experience in this area, and describes the legal and compliance risks we have observed from such arrangements. (1, footnote omitted)

RESPA had been enacted to curb industry abuses in residential closings. Segments of the industry have been very creative in developing new strategies to avoid RESPA liability, with MSAs a relatively new twist. MSAs are often “framed as payments for advertising or promotional services” but in some cases the providers “fail to provide some or all of the services required under their agreements.” (2,3)

This Bulletin is a shot across the bow of industry participants that are using MSAs, reminding them of the significant penalties that can result from RESPA violations. It seems to me that the Bureau is right to warn industry participants to “consider carefully RESPA’s requirements and restrictions and the adverse consequences that can follow from non-compliance.” (4)

Enhancing Mortgage Data and Litigation Risk

Posted on by

caution-454360_1920

Law360 quoted me in CFPB Data Collection Boost May Bring More Lending Cases (behind a paywall). It reads, in part,

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has given lenders more time to prepare for its new mortgage data reporting rule and streamlined some of the information lenders will have to provide to regulators, but worries persist that the new data will be used to bring more fair-lending enforcement actions.

The federal consumer finance watchdog on Thursday released a final version of its update  to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act — a key tool that regulators for decades have used to determine which populations were receiving home loans and which were being shut out — that more than doubles the amount of information that lenders will have to provide about the mortgages they issue.

That alone will make for a major technical overhaul of lenders’ operations, an overhaul that is likely to be expensive both in purchasing and developing new technology but also in the number of hours lenders will have to spend to get up to speed. But a second concern revolves around the vast new amount of information that the CFPB will have, and how it could use that information to review lenders’ compliance with fair-lending laws, said Donald C. Lampe, a partner with Morrison & Foerster LLP.

“I don’t think the full cost has yet been established, and I think what you’re seeing here are that there are concerns that this level of granular data can be misinterpreted,” he said. “There’s enough information here from a practical standpoint to re-underwrite the loan.”

*     *      *

“My position is that collecting more data about the mortgage market is a very good thing for consumers,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. “The more data [lenders] provide, the more likely it is that academics or the feds could find patterns of discriminatory lending.”

The added litigation risks do not come solely from the CFPB. The HMDA data is released publicly each year, meaning that activist groups, state regulators and plaintiffs attorneys will be able to comb through the vastly more comprehensive information, said Warren Traiger, counsel at BuckleySandler LLP.

“This is public data, so in addition to bank examiners and the [U.S. Department of Justice utilizing the data, there’s nothing preventing state attorneys general from using it as well,” he said.

And when state regulators, private plaintiffs or other parties come along with new complaints, the expanded data set will allow them to make far more specific discrimination claims than the current HMDA data makes possible.

“There will be a number of additional fields that will be out there that will allow regulators and the public to make more specific allegations regarding discrimination in mortgage lending than the current HMDA data allows,” Traiger said.

Friday’s Government Reports

Posted on by
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Monthly Complaint Snapshot focuses on consumer complaints related to mortgages.  The CFPB found that consumers have particular difficulty with mortgage servicing – especially when applying for loan modifications to avoid foreclosure.  The report also takes a close look at compliants coming out of the Denver, CO area.
  • The U.S. Treasury has announced $327 million in CDFI Bond Fund Gaurantees, which were awarded to CDFI’s to issue bonds, the funds of which are intended to be used to finance projects in low income communities.  Among the initiatives  guaranteed include senior and long term care development in latino communities and residential and commercial development in Native American communities.

Putting Disclosure to the Test

Posted on by

Scientist looking through microscope

Talia Gillis has posted Putting Disclosure to the Test: Toward Better Evidence-Based Policy to SSRN. This is another one of those papers that seems so esoteric, but really addresses an incredibly important topic in consumer protection.  The abstract reads,

Financial disclosures no longer enjoy the immunity from criticism they once had. While disclosures remain the hallmark of numerous areas of regulation, there is increasing skepticism as to whether disclosures are understood by consumers and do in fact improve consumer welfare. Debates on the virtues of disclosures overlook the process by which regulators continue to mandate disclosures. This article fills this gap by analyzing the testing of proposed disclosures, which is an increasingly popular way for regulators to establish the benefits of disclosure. If the testing methodology is misguided then the premise on which disclosures are adopted is flawed, leaving consumers unprotected. This article focuses on two recent major testing efforts: the European Union’s testing of fund disclosure and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s testing of the integrated mortgage disclosures, which will go into effect on August 1, 2015.

Despite the substantial resources invested in these quantitative studies, regulation based on study results is unlikely to benefit consumers since the testing lacks both external and internal validity. The generalizability of the testing is called into question since the isolated conditions of testing overlook the reality of financial transactions. Moreover, the testing method mistakenly assumes a direct link between comprehension and improved decisions, and so erroneously uses comprehension tests.

As disclosure becomes more central to people’s daily lives, from medical decision aids to nutritional labels, greater attention should be given to the testing policies that justify their implementation. This article proposes several ways to improve the content and design of quantitative studies as we enter the era of testing.

One of those clauses bears repeating: “the testing method mistakenly assumes a direct link between comprehension and improved decisions.” I have said repeatedly that the CFPB should rigorously test its financial literacy initiatives because the academic literature does not lend much support to the claim that those initiatives actually help consumers make better financial decisions.

This paper makes a strong case that the CFPB is not paying sufficient attention to the scholarly literature in this area. If so, it may, as a result, lead consumers down a path paved with good intentions that ends at a destination nobody wants to go.