InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York Fed says fintech companies improved lending efficiency in mortgage market
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) released a February 2018 Staff Report titled, “The Role of Technology in Mortgage Lending,” which concludes that technological innovation by fintech mortgage lenders has improved the efficiency of lending in the U.S. mortgage market. In the report, the New York Fed defines a fintech mortgage lending model as one that features “an end-to-end online mortgage application platform and centralized mortgage underwriting and processing augmented by automation.” The report uses quantitative analysis to study the effects of technological innovation in the U.S. mortgage market by identifying several areas of friction in traditional lending and examining whether fintech lending improves them. Among other things, the report finds that, without increasing risk, fintech lenders (i) process mortgages more quickly; (ii) respond more elastically to fluctuations in demand; and (iii) increase borrowers’ propensity to refinance. However, the report notes that there is little evidence that fintech lending is more effective than traditional lending at providing financially constrained borrowers access to credit.
VA clarifies policy regarding the use of lender payment or credit of certain borrower costs
On February 23, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-18-4 in response to reports that lenders may be funding temporary “buydown” or escrow accounts in order to subsidize a borrower’s payment through an above market interest rate, which the VA views as a “cash-advance on principal.” The circular reminds lenders that cash-advances on principal are prohibited, and lenders may not pay temporary buydown fees and charges. The circular notes that sellers are not prohibited from paying buydown fees and charges for the borrower and that lenders are allowed to charge a maximum of one percent of the loan amount as a flat charge in lieu of all other charges related to the costs of origination not expressly allowed by 38 C.F.R. 36.4313. The circular is effective until January 1, 2020.
Previously, on February 1, the VA updated multiple chapters of the VA Servicer Handbook M26-4, which, among other things, added the definition of delinquency, corrected the bankruptcy reporting timeframe, and added information on the new VA Affordable Modification.
IRS issues reporting guidance for MIP
On February 22, the IRS issued a notice providing guidance to mortgage lenders on the reporting of mortgage insurance premiums (MIP) treated as qualified residence interest. The IRS emphasizes that MIP paid or accrued through December 31, 2017 will be deductible for eligible taxpayers and informs lenders to report MIP received in 2017 on Form 1098. If a lender has already filed Form 1098 and did not include the reportable MIP, the IRS requires lenders to file corrected forms by the filing due date and to furnish corrected statements to borrowers by March 15.
Department of Education releases RFI on undue hardship threshold
On February 21, the Department of Education published a Request for Information (RFI) seeking feedback on whether there is a need to clarify the threshold for “undue hardship” when evaluating bankruptcy cases in which borrowers seek to discharge student loans. According to the RFI, current U.S. Bankruptcy Code states that student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy claims only if “excepting the debt from discharge would impose an ‘undue hardship’ on the borrower and the borrower’s dependents.” However, according to the RFI, the term “Undue hardship” has never been defined by Congress in the Bankruptcy Code, nor has the Department been delegated the authority to do so. Instead, the context for proving a hardship claim falls under one of two tests summarized in the department’s 2015 Dear Colleague Letter (2015 Letter). The RFI requests comments on the following: (i) what factors should be considered when evaluating undue hardship claims; (ii) the weight to be given to any such factors; (iii) whether the use of two tests result in any “inequities among borrowers”; (iv) under what circumstances should loan holders “concede an undue hardship claim by the borrower”; and (v) whether and how changes should be made to the 2015 Letter. Comments on the RFI are due May 22.
House passes bill that would effectively overturn Madden; others amend RESPA disclosure requirements and adjust points and fees definitions under TILA
On February 14, in a bipartisan vote of 245-171, the House passed H.R. 3299, the “Protecting Consumers Access to Credit Act of 2017,” to codify the “valid-when-made” doctrine and ensure that a bank loan that was valid as to its maximum rate of interest in accordance with federal law at the time the loan was made shall remain valid with respect to that rate, regardless of whether the bank subsequently sells or assigns the loan to a third party. As previously covered in InfoBytes, this regulatory reform bill would effectively overturn the 2015 decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, which ruled that debt buyers cannot use their relationship with a national bank to preempt state usury limits. Relatedly, the Senate Banking Committee is considering a separate measure, S. 1642.
The same day, in a separate bipartisan vote of 271-145, the House approved H.R. 3978, the “TRID Improvement Act of 2017,” which would amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) to modify disclosure requirements applicable to mortgage loan transactions. Specifically, the bill states that “disclosed charges for any title insurance premium shall be equal to the amount charged for each individual title insurance policy, subject to any discounts as required by either state regulation or the title company rate filings.”
Finally, last week on February 8, the House voted 280-131 to pass H.R. 1153, the “Mortgage Choice Act of 2017,” to adjust definitions of points and fees in connection with mortgage transactions under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Specifically, the bill states that “neither escrow charges for insurance nor affiliated title charges shall be considered ‘points and fees’ for purposes of determining whether a mortgage is a ‘high-cost mortgage.’” On February 12, the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
OCC requests comments on registration of mortgage loan originators
On February 6, the OCC published a notice and request for comment in the Federal Register concerning its information collection entitled, “Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators.” Under the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act), any person employed by a regulated entity, who is engaged in the business of residential mortgage loan origination, must register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLS), obtain a unique identifier, and adopt policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the SAFE Act’s requirements. The NMLS is structured to, among other things, (i) improve information sharing between regulators; (ii) increase mortgage loan originator accountability; and (iii) provide consumers easy access to background information on mortgage loan originators, including publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions. The OCC retains enforcement authority under the SAFE Act for financial institutions (including federal branches of foreign banks) with total assets of $10 billion or less. Comments on the notice must be received by April 9.
Massachusetts AG fines nonbank for alleged mortgage servicing concerns
On January 30, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced a settlement with a nonbank mortgage servicer to resolve allegations concerning unfair and deceptive mortgage modifications made by the servicer that put borrowers at a heightened risk of foreclosure. According to the state’s press release, in making modifications, the servicer allegedly violated Massachusetts’ Act Preventing Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures (the “Act”), which offers foreclosure protections to borrowers, including requiring “creditors to make a good faith effort to avoid foreclosure for borrowers whose mortgage loans have unfair subprime terms.” Specifically, the AG’s office found that the servicer had violated the Act by offering “unfair and deceptive short-term, interest-only loan modifications” to borrowers without considering the borrowers’ ability to repay. In support of claim against the servicer, the Massachusetts AG pointed to the fact that “[a]fter one or two years, the monthly payments on those modifications ballooned to an amount higher” than what the borrower was paying when the default originally occurred. This practice, Healy stated, increased the risk of foreclosure and thus violated the Act. According to the AG’s press release, in addition to providing $500,000 in restitution to certain borrowers affected by foreclosures, the servicer is also required to provide “millions of dollars” in principal reductions to affected borrowers.
District judge enters final judgment against company posing as a direct lender; rules in favor of CFPB
On January 30, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a New Jersey-based company along with two associated individuals (defendants) to pay civil money penalties totaling $75,000 for allegedly offering loans to consumers who were awaiting payouts from legal settlements or victim-compensation funds. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the order stems from a complaint filed against defendants for allegedly engaging in deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act by purportedly representing itself as a direct lender, when in actuality it did not provide loans to consumers, but instead brokered transactions while charging a commission for the service. Defendants neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the complaint. In addition to civil money penalties, the order permanently bans defendants from participating either directly or indirectly in any activities related to funding post-settlement litigation or victim compensation funds.
Pennsylvania requires non-bank mortgage servicers to submit licensing applications through NMLS
On January 23, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities announced it will begin accepting licensing applications from non-bank servicers through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) as early as April 1 as part of the state’s move to increase oversight into non-bank mortgage servicing. The licensing requirement falls within SB 751 (Act No. 81), which amended Title 7 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to regulate certain mortgage servicing activities, and was signed into law on December 22 by Governor Tom Wolf. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The deadline for submitting licensing applications is June 30.
CSBS announces FTC access to non-confidential NMLS licensing information
On January 18, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced it will start sharing non-confidential licensing information obtained through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) with the FTC. Once implemented, the FTC will have access to regulated companies’ ownership information, and public FTC enforcement actions will be added to the NMLS database and made available to state regulators and to the public. According to the FTC, access to this type of information will improve consumer protection investigation efficiency and coordination with state law enforcement partners. Currently, select NMLS data is shared with the Office of Financial Research, CFPB, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and FHA.