InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Missouri amends mortgage broker licensing requirements
On July 6, the Missouri governor signed SB 599, which, among other things, modifies the state’s mortgage broker licensing requirements. Specifically, the legislation (i) provides that a prelicensing education course that is completed by an applicant will not satisfy the state’s education requirement if the course precedes an application “by a certain period” as established by the Nationwide Multi-State Licensing System and Registry (NMLSR); (ii) requires persons with various financial relationships with a business applicant for a residential mortgage loan broker license to furnish fingerprints to the NMLSR for submission to the FBI and any other authorized government entity for a background check; and (iii) allows the Director of the Division of Finance to waive the requirement that residential mortgage loan brokers maintain at least one full-service office in the state of Missouri for persons “exclusively engaged in the business of loan processing or underwriting,” or providing mortgage loan servicing. The legislation is effective August 28.
CFPB seeking innovation in adverse action notices when using artificial intelligence
On July 7, the CFPB released a blog post discussing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), addressing the regulatory uncertainty that accompanies their use, and encouraging stakeholders to use the Bureau’s innovation programs to address these issues. The blog post notes that “AI has the potential to expand credit access by enabling lenders to evaluate the creditworthiness of some of the millions of consumers who are unscorable using traditional underwriting techniques,” but using AI may create or amplify risks, including unlawful discrimination, lack of transparency, privacy concerns, and inaccurate predictions.
The blog post discusses how using AI/ML models in credit underwriting may raise compliance concerns with ECOA and FCRA provisions that require creditors to issue adverse action notices detailing the main reasons for the denial, particularly because AI/ML decisions can be “based on complex interrelationships.” Recognizing this, the Bureau explains that there is flexibility in the current regulatory framework “that can be compatible with AI algorithms.” As an example, citing to the Official Interpretation to Regulation B, the blog post notes that “a creditor may disclose a reason for a denial even if the relationship of that disclosed factor to predicting creditworthiness may be unclear to the applicant,” which would allow for a creditor to use AI/ML models where the variables and key reasons are known, but the relationship between them is not intuitive. Additionally, neither ECOA nor Regulation B require the use of a specific list of reasons, allowing creditors flexibility when providing reasons that reflect alternative data sources.
In order to address the continued regulatory uncertainty, the blog post encourages stakeholders to use the Trial Disclosure, No-Action Letter, and Compliance Assistance Sandbox programs offered by the Bureau (covered by InfoBytes here) to take advantage of AI/ML’s potential benefits. The blog post mentions three specific areas in which the Bureau is particularly interested in exploring: (i) “the methodologies for determining the principal reasons for an adverse action”; (iii) “the accuracy of explainability methods, particularly as applied to deep learning and other complex ensemble models”; and (iii) the conveyance of principal reasons “in a manner that accurately reflects the factors used in the model and is understandable to consumers.”
CFPB repeals Payday Rule’s ability-to-pay provisions
On July 7, the CFPB issued the final rule revoking certain underwriting provisions of the agency’s 2017 final rule covering “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans” (Payday Lending Rule). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued the proposed rule in February 2019 and the final rule implements the proposal without revision. Specifically, the final rule revokes, among other things (i) the provision that makes it an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to make covered high-interest rate, short-term loans or covered longer-term balloon payment loans without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loans according to their terms; (ii) the prescribed mandatory underwriting requirements for making the ability-to-repay determination; (iii) the “principal step-down exemption” provision for certain covered short-term loans; and (iv) related definitions, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Additional details regarding the final rule can be found in the Bureau’s unofficial redline and executive summary.
While compliance with the payment provisions of the Payday Lending Rule is currently stayed by court order (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the Bureau states that it “will seek to have them go into effect with a reasonable period for entities to come into compliance.” Additionally, the CFPB ratified the payment provisions of the Payday Lending Rule in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seila Law (covered by a Special Alert here) and issued a statement on the supervision and enforcement of certain aspects of the payment provisions with respect to certain large loans. According to the statement, the Bureau does not intend to take supervisory or enforcement action with regard to covered loans that exceed the Regulation Z coverage threshold (currently set at $58,300). The statement notes that the Bureau is monitoring and assessing the “effects of the [p]ayment [p]rovisions, including their scope, and [it] may determine whether further action is needed in light of what it learns.”
Moreover, the Bureau released FAQs pertaining to compliance with the payment provisions of the Payday Lending Rule. The FAQs discuss the details of the covered loans and “payment transfers”—defined as a “a debit or withdrawal of funds from a consumer’s account that the lender initiates for the purpose of collecting any amount due or purported to be due in connection with a covered loan”—under the rule.
Fannie and Freddie issue Covid-19-related selling updates
On July 1, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac updated its Covid-19 frequently asked questions regarding the underwriting and loan eligibility for sellers. Fannie Mae’s FAQs (previously discussed here) were updated to address questions regarding documentation and calculations related to self-employed income and variable income, including where borrowers experienced gaps of employment due to Covid-19. Freddie Mac’s origination, underwriting, and eligibility FAQs were updated to address questions regarding, among other things, pre-closing verifications, fluctuating employment earnings, self-employed income, determining income eligibility with additional analysis and documentation, documentation requirements, and Covid-19 business assistance, including proceeds from Paycheck Protection Program loans.
Fannie and Freddie issue temporary underwriting guidance for self-employment income; updates to renovation loan programs
On May 28, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued guidance for underwriting self-employed borrowers during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to Fannie Mae’s Lender Letter LL-2020-03 and Freddie Mac’s Guide Bulletin 2020-19, lenders are now required to obtain additional documentation from self-employed borrowers to determine if the borrower’s income is “stable and has a reasonable expectation of continuance.” Lenders must obtain either (i) an audited year-to-date profit and loss statement for the business, or (ii) an unaudited year-to-date profit and loss statement signed by the borrower and two business depository account statements no older than the latest two months represented on the profit and loss statement. Bulletin 2020-19 and LL-2020-03 also provide guidance to assist lenders when reviewing the documentation to determine whether the business operations were impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and whether they are considered stable. Fannie and Freddie encourage lenders to apply the temporary requirements immediately, however, they must be applied to any applications received on or after June 11.
Additionally, Bulletin 2020-19 provides temporary flexibilities with Freddie Mac’s “CHOICERenovation” Mortgages, and LL 2020-04 provides guidance on Fannie Mae’s “HomeStyle Renovation” loans. Fannie Mae also issued updates to its Covid-19 servicing FAQs.
VA provides additional lender guidance concerning Covid-19
On May 19, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-20-19 to remind lenders of certain VA policies and provide guidance regarding the processing of VA-guaranteed loans during Covid-19. The circular provides guidance regarding IRS Form 4506-T, renewal applications, applications for underwriter approvals, and fees to conduct business with the VA. The circular is rescinded on April 1, 2021.
Freddie Mac issues bulletin regarding selling requirements and guidance related to Covid-19
On May 5, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2020-14 to Freddie Mac sellers to provide guidance relating to selling requirements in light of Covid-19. The bulletin sets out temporary requirements related to mortgage purchase eligibility and self-reporting requirements for mortgages in Covid-19 related forbearance. It also extends certain previously announced temporary requirements for credit underwriting, and appraisal, condominium project, and power of attorney flexibilities until June 30. Further, Freddie Mac provided guidance and reminders relating to, among other things, furloughs and layoffs, unemployment compensation, and automated income assessment with Loan Product Advisor using tax return data.
HUD issues mortgagee letter regarding Section 223(f) underwriting mitigants for multifamily housing projects
On April 10, HUD released Mortgagee Letter 2020-11 to Multifamily Regional Directors, Production Directors, Operations Officers, and FHA MAP Lenders regarding Section 223(f) underwriting mitigants for multifamily housing projects due to the economic impact of Covid-19. Specifically, HUD takes the position that the Covid-19 emergency constitutes a “material change” that requires underwriting mitigants to reduce this additional risk. As such, the letter provides instructions to HUD staff about mitigants that may be included in the Firm Commitment for Section 223(f) loans that are in process, as well as for projects where a Firm Commitment has been issued. Among other things, HUD imposes certain debt service reserve requirements for both market rate transactions and affordable transactions. HUD also requires that, at endorsement, cash out proceeds in excess of 250% of the non-critical repair escrow be used to fund the debt service reserve account. The letter is effective immediately and lasts until HUD determines that additional mitigants for Section 223(f) transactions are no longer required.
Regulators issue joint statement on using alternative data in underwriting
On December 3, the Federal Reserve, the CFPB, the FDIC, the NCUA, and the OCC (agencies) issued an Interagency Statement on alternative data use in credit underwriting, highlighting applicable consumer protection laws and noting risks and benefits. (See press release here). According to the statement, alternative data use in underwriting may “lower the cost of credit” and expand credit access, a point previously raised by the CFPB and covered in InfoBytes. Specifically, the potential benefits include: (i) increased “speed and accuracy of credit decisions”; (ii) lender ability to “evaluate the creditworthiness of consumers who currently may not obtain credit in the mainstream credit system”; and (iii) consumer ability “to obtain additional products and/or more favorable pricing/terms based on enhanced assessments of repayment capacity.” “Alternative data” refers to information not usually found in traditional credit reports or typically provided by customers, including for example, automated “cash flow evaluation” which evaluates a borrower’s capacity to meet payment obligations and is derived from a consumer’s bank account records. The statement indicates that this approach can improve the “measurement of income and expenses” of consumers with steady income over time from multiple sources, rather than a single job. The statement also recognizes that the way in which entities use alternative data—for example, implementing a “Second Look” program, where alternative data is only used for applicants that would otherwise be denied credit—can increase credit access. The statement points out that use of alternative data may increase potential risks, and that those practices must comply with applicable consumer protection laws, including “fair lending laws, prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” Therefore, the agencies encourage entities to incorporate appropriate “robust compliance management” when using alternative data in order to protect consumer information.
Alternative data model boosts credit access, says CFPB NAL recipient
On August 6, the CFPB published a blog providing an update on credit access and the Bureau’s first-issued No-Action Letter (NAL), and reporting that use of alternative data in underwriting may expand access to credit. In 2017, the CFPB announced its first NAL to a company that uses alternative data and machine learning to make credit underwriting and pricing decisions. One condition for receiving the NAL required the company to agree to a model risk management and compliance plan, which analyzed and addressed risks to consumers and the real-world impact of its service. Through specific testing, the company worked to answer two key questions: (i) “whether the tested model’s use of alternative data and machine learning expands access to credit, including lower-priced credit, overall and for various applicant segments, compared to the traditional model”; and (ii) “whether the tested model’s underwriting or pricing outcomes result in greater disparities than the traditional model with respect to race, ethnicity, sex, or age, and if so, whether applicants in different protected class groups with similar model-predicted default risk actually default at the same rate.”
According to the Bureau, the company reported that in the access to credit comparisons, the alternative data model approved 27 percent more applicants as compared to a traditional underwriting model, and yielded 16 percent lower average APRs for approved loans, with the expansion in access to credit “occur[ing] across all tested race, ethnicity, and sex segments.” For the fair lending testing, the company reported that no disparities were found in the approval rate and APR analysis results provided for minority, female, and older applicants. Additionally, the company reported significant expansion of access to credit for certain consumer segments under the tested model, including that (i) “consumers with FICO scores from 620 to 660 are approved approximately twice as frequently”; (ii) “[a]pplicants under 25 years of age are 32 [percent] more likely to be approved”; and (iii) “[c]onsumers with incomes under $50,000 are 13 [percent] more likely to be approved.” The Bureau noted that the testing results were provided by the company, and the simulations and analyses were not separately replicated by the Bureau.