Special offer

Mortgage Brokers - Kiss your A@#$ Goodbye!

By
Mortgage and Lending with SecurityNational Mortgage

Well it has begun...  the Federal Government  in their blundering wisdom  is now  trying to  eliminate  mortgage brokers.    The  Federal Reserve is preparing to make sweeping changes to the origination landscape by enacting new rules that will cripple the mortgage broker's business. 

Both the Federal Trade Commission and  HUD have visited theses issues and have policies in place that address the practices that the FED is trying to regulate.

I have printed the memo from the  National Association of mortgage Brokers calling on everyone in our industry to send comments  to the FED on this important issue.  If you do not act act now.. you can kiss your career goodbye!

------------

 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Proposed Rule Amending Regulation Z

 

1.  Proposed Fed Rule Impedes Brokers’ Ability to Compete and Hurts Consumers        

 

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System recently proposed amending Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act. 

 

The proposed Fed Rule would put in place some useful consumer protections, but it also would impose significant burdens on mortgage brokers.  In particular, the proposed Fed rule would require brokers, but not other mortgage originators, to disclose the specific dollar amount which the broker would earn from a transaction, including yield spread premiums.  That disclosure would have to be made before the consumer paid any fee to any person, and before submitting an application.  Brokers may only receive compensation disclosed in that manner.  If there is no such disclosure, the mortgage brokers cannot be paid by any amount by any party, lender or borrower.

 

HUD already requires disclosure of yield spread premiums in both the GFE and HUD-1.  However, the Fed believes additional disclosure is needed from brokers, but not other originators, to protect consumers because, the Fed claims, consumers believe that brokers are a “trusted advisor” who are bound to get the best possible deal for borrowers, but do not view other originators in the same way.  The Fed has taken this position even though exhaustive studies of mortgage disclosures by the Federal Trade Commission, the government’s principal consumer protection agency, in 2004 and 2007 show that additional disclosures of mortgage broker compensation created confusion, caused consumers to choose more expensive loans, led to a bias against broker-assisted transactions, and impeded competition, thus hurting consumers. 

 

  1. Opportunity for Public to Comment on Proposed Fed Rule

 

The Fed, like other federal agencies, is required to solicit comments from the public on any proposed regulation.  The Fed must consider those comments before issuing a final rule.  Comments must be submitted by April 8th .  Comments may be submitted at regs.comment@federalreserve.gov, and should identify “Docket No. R-1305” in the subject line of the message.

 

  The National Association of Mortgage Brokers will file comments on the proposed Fed rule.  Those comments will be very detailed, and include lengthy analyses of such matters as research methodology and rulemaking procedural requirements.  However, it would be quite helpful for others to submit comments as well, particularly if those comments were mortgage brokers who explain real-life, practical considerations about how mortgage markets work and how brokers conducted their business.  Attached are some points which it would be useful to make in such letters.


Suggested Points to be Made in Comments Submitted on

Proposed Rule Amending Regulation Z (Truth in Lending and HOEPA)

 

 

WHAT:  The Federal Reserve has proposed a new rule which would implement several measures designed to protect consumers.  Among other provisions, the proposed rule would prohibit mortgage brokers from receiving any compensation unless the specific dollar amount of the total compensation the broker would receive from both the borrower or the lender, including yield spread premiums, was agreed upon with the borrower before an application was submitted.  This requirement would be in addition to the disclosures regarding broker compensation required by current law to be included in the GFE and HUD-1.  The Fed is required to solicit comments on the proposal from the public.  Brokers are encouraged to submit comments on the proposed Fed rule.

 

HOW:    Comments may be emailed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System at regs.comment@federalreserve.gov, and should identify “Docket No. R-1305” in the subject line of the message. 

 

WHEN: Comments must be submitted by APRIL 8, 2008.

 

SUGGESTED POINTS FOR LETTER:

 

[Theme:  Highlight Real Life Experiences and State and Local Considerations]

 

  • Identify broker writing letter by name and home town

 

  • Express support for the consumer protection goals of the Federal Reserve Board’s proposed amendments to Regulation Z, but respectfully oppose the proposal to restrict compensation for mortgage brokers

 

  • Explain the services that mortgage brokers provide as an intermediary between borrowers and lenders, and the value the broker adds in the real estate transaction by serving BOTH parties, but representing NEITHER.

 

  • Explain how mortgage brokers must compete with direct lenders, and how the distinctions between brokers and lenders have blurred in recent years as lenders themselves typically package and resell loans they originate

 

  • Note how consumers are largely unable to distinguish between brokers and lenders, which have similar names, use similar signage, and rely on similar advertising

 

  • Insist that any disclosures apply equally to ALL mortgage originators, not just brokers

 

  • Explain how yield spread premiums are much more than just compensation, and how they are used to pay certain costs and facilitate the loan transaction

 

  • Explain how, in the real world, requiring brokers, but not other loan originators, to make compensation disclosures enable the brokers’ competitors to steer consumers away from brokers, even if brokers offer more favorable loans

 

  • Explain how it is impossible to give a reasonably precise dollar estimate of fees a broker will charge in a transaction even before an application is submitted because the broker does not yet know the prospective borrower’s financial status, transaction details, type of  product sought, or amount of loan, all of which may vary as the transaction progresses 

 

  • Suggest that the Fed consider alternatives to the proposed regulation which would protect consumers in their dealings with all mortgage originators, and encourage competition on price and service

 

  • Thank the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve for considering the comments

 

Comments (26)

Richard Sweum
1st Security Bank - Everett, WA

Who has the weakest lobby...

1) MBA

2) NAMB

Brokers are the Fall Guys.

Apr 01, 2008 05:14 AM
Shelby Chapin
Gateway Mortgage Group - New Braunfels, TX
A Known Expert in Mortgage Lending

Brokers make 70% of the volume, take us out of the equation and you will all be slaves to the bank...imagine trying to get a loan closed in 15 or 30 days, imagine the customer service.  If these changes do go in affect I am going to thing we will start getting our milk, automobiles, etc at cost..they are essentially proposing Brokers not get profit on a loan, everyone thinks they could be a loan officer, I beg to differ especially in these days..it takes alot of knowledge and perserverance to get a deal done...Realtors as well should be concerned, approvals will be black and white you fit or not which will impact Sales...Builders/Realtors/Title companies should all jump on the band wagon, remember 70% of the volume that is alot.

Apr 01, 2008 01:23 PM
Michael Veri
Realty Executives Mid Florida - The Villages, FL
Bad news.  I love my mortgage broker, he makes things happen.  Just try going to BOA to get a mortgage, time frames, closing dates what are those???
Apr 01, 2008 03:51 PM
-- Casey Brischle
Columbia Bank - Spokane, WA
Spokane Home Loan Mortgage Professional
Shelby, Not all banks are what you describe.  I am the first one to say this is BS (for the most part) but the bank I work for does all their underwriting in house and has access to secondary markets.  We have closed a purchase in 4 days.  It's all who you work for i guess.
Apr 02, 2008 03:22 AM
John Severino
Nuline Funding, Inc. - Westlake Village, CA
BROKERS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, If a broker makes a BS statement there are laws etc to hammer nails through our hands.  It just makes me sick that they want to regulate so much for nothing.
Apr 02, 2008 03:29 AM
Annette Frese
Lincoln Capital Resources - Walnut, CA
The government needs to focus on the real problem and do something about it, they continue to look in the wrong places whch wont help anybody. Not all Brokers are bad, there are many good ones out there that provide the service to the customer and follow the rules.
Apr 02, 2008 04:42 AM
Steven Odierno
Mahwah, NJ
NJ Mortgage & Marketing Professional

Hi Lee - Another brilliant plan by the government to stick it to the little guy and exacerbate an already bad situation.  Who writes these proposals?  I mean, how in God's name can we possibly disclose the exact amount of Yield Spread prior to taking an application?  Even in a government-created fantasy land where all borrowers are equally qualified, has anyone bothered to note the fact that rate sheets change rather frequently?  Unbelievable!  I just read that there is also some pretty strong pending legislation in your state of Florida.  Best of luck, and we will prevail!

Apr 02, 2008 08:05 AM
Anonymous
Ryan Fiore

So am I the only broker who thinks this isn't such a bad thing? So you have to disclose your fees on another piece of paper & you're not allowed to change them later.. What's the big deal? You are disclosing everything upfront to your borrower anyway, aren't you? As for not knowing the YSP when you disclose, just lock the loan! Many banks already make you complete this disclosure within 3 days of the 1003 anyway Citimortgage, Wachovia, Wells Fargo and now HSBC being just a few of the ones I use that do. 

The bill also outlines high cost lending making it 3% over the 10 year note which puts high cost lending at 7.5 something APR. Which is also not that big of a deal unless your maxing out your loans. It doesn't even say that you cant close these, just that you have to make sure the borrower has the ability to repay. Citi already does this too, it's called the Citi Initiative. 

Making prepayment penalties expire 60 days before the rate resets. That's a fantastic change! This'll help people refinance without having to suffer through much higher payments  

Another thing it trys to faze out is borrower's not escrowing on their primary residences. Which has become a huge problem from brokers not escrowing on all the subprime mortgages (this being standard with new century, WMC, argent, and pretty much every other old subprime lender.) 

It also stops misleading advertising from brokers stating that a loan was fixed when it's really an ARM that's only fixed for a certain amount of years. Great idea! The amount of misleading advertising in south florida is outrageous. 

Prohibits low or no doc loans on some borrowers. Well if you haven't notice Fannie already dropped SISA on w2 employees, a program that should have never existed in the first place. 

 

Our industry needs  change. There have been plenty of deceptive practices in the last few years and those brokers won't be staying around. I'm not saying that it's all the brokers fault or that all of the changes I've read in the last 6 months were good or anything. The previous proposal that eliminated YSP was retarded. I just don't think this one is so bad. 

 

Well that's just my 2 cents.  

Apr 02, 2008 04:09 PM
#14
Lee Walsh
SecurityNational Mortgage - Lake Mary, FL
Executive Talent Scout for Mortgage Professionals

Thanks to all who have posted.. PLEASE voice your concern to the FED - it will just take a few minutes of your time.

To Ryan - I think you are the only broker who is for this.. the point is is not that there are rules being enacted, it is that only a mortgage broker must follow them. A bank loan officer does not.  A loan officer working for a lender does not.

In todays market place there is little difference between the services provided by a mortgage broker, a mortgage company loan officer, and a bank loan officer.

The rules that each must play by are very different. It should be a level playing field. 

Also brokers did not invent the use of the term "fixed" for a 2, 3, 5, 7, or 10 year arm, banks did - it's on every wholesale rate sheet you get. 

 

 

Apr 03, 2008 03:54 AM
Anonymous
Paul McFadden

Hi Lee: I don't know about you but I definitely don't plan on kissing my you-know-what goodbye. I feel I can compete against anyone by offering great, reliable, and truthful service to all my customers. What's happening now is simply a market correction which was needed. People will always need mortgages so I plan on continuing!

 

Paul

 

 

Apr 03, 2008 05:46 AM
#16
Ryan Fiore
Mortgage Foundation - Fort Lauderdale, FL

Lee,

 

Now I absolutely do agree with that. My biggest problem with the bill is that it does not include LOs. They should not be held to different standards as Brokers. But my point is that if this passes it would not harm my business. You are also right about the fixed naming. It's like getting mad at a department store clerk for selling you a pair of pants. You sold it, you didn't make it. However, in South Florida there were a lot of deceptive advertisements from brokers leading people to believe that the pay option arms were fixed or that the 2 year arms were fixed for the duration of the loan. Maybe it's just worse down here with that stuff than the rest of the country. I also see advertisements that dont include APR or even state what type of program it is and all of that stuff needs to stop.

Apr 03, 2008 06:31 AM
Lee Walsh
SecurityNational Mortgage - Lake Mary, FL
Executive Talent Scout for Mortgage Professionals

Ryan,

Glad to see you joined AR! Welcome!!!


Apr 03, 2008 09:21 AM
Lee Walsh
SecurityNational Mortgage - Lake Mary, FL
Executive Talent Scout for Mortgage Professionals

I came across the post by Dan Dowling that shows who gets the most complaints - brokers or lenders.

 

Which group do you think gets more complaints?  (Keep in mind that there are more brokers than lenders).  

http://activerain.com/blogsview/217130/Who-gets-more-complaints

 

 

Apr 03, 2008 06:15 PM
Matthew Heavener
ERA Heavener Realty Co. - Jacksonville, FL
Good information, thanks for sharing.
Apr 04, 2008 01:54 AM
This Account No Longer Exists
Inactive Account - Woodstock, VA
 There's no need to voice your opinion with the federal reserve because their minds are already made and there's nothing you can do about it. A good faith estimate is exactly that, an estimate of the fee's being charged . Now, if the estimate and compensation is not almost exact ,within $100, we will be in trouble and problably be fined. So, what happens if you lock in a a 5.75% and it pays 1% ysp and say the rates go down and a the very next day the same rate pays 2% ysp with a different lender, than we have to have a new disclosure signed to re-disclose the new compensation.  Good Luck trying to get great service on a loan without brokers. I know of a lender that's in the top 5 of the nation and there fha/va/vhda loans are on a 45 day underwriting turntime. They're afraid to hire new staff because they don't see the market coming back strong anytime soon. They should change the name of the form from good faith estimate to Closing Costs because that's what it is.
Apr 04, 2008 03:37 AM
Lee Walsh
SecurityNational Mortgage - Lake Mary, FL
Executive Talent Scout for Mortgage Professionals

Charlie, thanks for your post, I hope your wrong. You will be right if no one voices their concern for the proposal.

It's guaranteed to go into law as it reads now if no one takes action. It's sink or swim time!

Apr 04, 2008 03:44 AM
Mike Smith
Fair Housing Resource Center - Roseville, CA

ok here is my actual text:  Sorry for length:

 

To the Honorable Federal Reserve Board,
 
From:
Mike Smith
Great American Mortgage Corp
Roseville (Sacramento) CA
 
After reading and re-reading the proposed legislation, although good intended, this legislation will accomplish two things: 
 
#1 it will actually end up harming the consumer
#2 it will put mortgage brokers out of work further harming both the housing sector and unemployment
 
Here is why: 
 
The assumption that all borrowers are the same is simply not true.  Not all borrowers have excellent credit and not all borrowers can verify income, nor have sufficient assets to qualify.  As such they fall into different categories of home loans.  Some borrowers will misrepresent items on applications which lead to different programs, higher rates, etc.  Moreover, there is an intense timing issue with the delivery of a locked loan that cannot be met under these conditions.  I have no problem with this legislation asking for this disclosure at time of actual lock, but pre-app and pre-lock is a recipe for disaster!
 
As a broker, we try to shop the loan and get the consumer the best possible loan available.  In the current market, competition dictates that.  We already disclose within three days of application a complete MLDS, GFE, TIL, Hmda booklet, charm booklet, etc.  We go through great efforts to ensure the borrower is disclosed prior to moving ahead.  Many brokers including my office, discloses with the assumption that the borrower is perfect and that disclosure is before the borrower ever makes an application.  However, if the borrower is not perfect, cannot prove their income, etc. what happens when the loan falls into one of those categories?  These loans are more expensive based on risk, in terms of rates, fees and due diligence (or time invested for free by the broker and investor) prior to making a dime on the loan. 
 
We are 1099 independent contractors trying to earn a living and work for free until the consumer signs all disclosures (about 45 pages), and signs all loan documents (another 100 pages or so) and get a three day writ of recission to back out. 
 
The consumer is inundated with paper work.  We need less not more disclosures. 
 
In fact in an exhaustive study, the more disclosures the more confusion.  Borrowers get confused and make poor decisions.   With over 40% of the brokers gone, I strongly believe that most of the bad apples are gone. 
 
Brokers are trusted "advisors" and I believe the ones left are the ones who have built their business on trust, and great advice. 
 
It is impossible to agree on a yield spread premium prior to application especially in this mortgage market environment with all the volatility.  If I disclose a YSP at 10 am and get the app at say 12 noon, there is too much time elapsed.  I cannot disclose a rebate which has not happened yet when I don't have an application or know anything about the borrower.  Pricing changes extremely quickly as you know based upon inflation.  The FED cuts rates in the am and by middle afternoon the mortgage rates rise .50% to 1.00% in fee.  I have empirical evidence dating back to 2003. 
 
Rebate is moving quickly up or down and even just protecting the rate is near impossible. 
 
We can have 4-5 reprice agreements in a given day with all the volatility.  See the attached chart compliments of the mortgage market guide.    This legislation, although we do appreciate efforts to protect the public, falls way short. 
This legislation is akin to making stock trades be at a guaranteed price regardless of the market maker on the other side. 
 
If the borrower agrees to a 5.50% 30 yr fixed with 1% loan origination fee (the norm) and I disclose a .50% YSP or rebate; and then the market moves to and by the time we get the app done, the market moves to 5.50% at a cost of say .125% and I have to then charge 1.625% in total points to earn the agreed upon commission of say 1.50%.   Your legislation says we cannot do this and even though the client wants it, I would be forced to charge the aforementioned and agreed upon price of 5.50% at 1% origination, meaning the broker or me will earn only .375% and be forced to pass on the loan.  the client would not get the loan!
 
The clients have a responsibility to move when we the brokers say to and trust us for our hard earned advice. 
 
I have respectfully enclosed a link to my blog that I believe would better address the issue. 
 
http://activerain.com/blogsview/421280/How-to-solve-the
 
Having full disclosure we already have. 
What we need is better licensing requirements and sensible lending standards.  The market is fixing the latter, with your help we can focus on licensing requirements.  My state of CA requires one license for both realtors and mortgage brokers and the test is 95% real estate heavy, but does not address ethics, client responsibility, fraud, etc.  All that is learned either by good role models or bad. 
 
More over, a CFL or DOC lender can hire 100% unexperienced and unlicensed loan officers and under your plan they don't even have to disclose according to what the other brokers would have have to under this legislation. 
 
All this legislation does, is make it easier for large banks to put their main source of compeittion out of business.  This legislation, again although consumer protection is a noble cause, will result in less competition, less disclosure from non-brokers and more problems down the road.
 
This is a recipe for disaster, more housing foreclosures and is simply put a bad piece of legislation being pushed through to apease a public in need of real leadership. 
 
I would be more than will to discuss in full detail and/or appear before any committee. 
 
Mike Smith
 
Here is a summary of today's market movement:  When should we lock in Mr. Bernanke? Fri, Apr 04 - 4:31 PM ET
Market Wrap: Today's market action had everything to do with Jobs, or rather the lack of them. Our benchmark FNMA 5.5% mortgage bonds gained 65bp to close at $101.34 after a far worse than anticipated monthly Jobs Report provided further evidence the economy has slipped into a recession. The Labor Department reported a loss of 80,000 jobs in March, the greatest job loss in five years. The market was looking for a loss of 50,000 jobs. To rub salt in the wound, February's previously reported job loss of 63,000 was revised to a greater loss of 76,000 jobs. As a consequence, the Unemployment Rate spiked to 5.1% from February's level of 4.8%, and with the higher job loss revisions worse job loss levels may lie ahead of us. The sour jobs news prevented the stock market from mounting any type of meaningful rally, but investors were surprised at how well the stock market held up during today's session rather than undergoing a sharp sell-off. In fact, the major indexes managed to turn in a "mixed" performance with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipping 16 points lower to close out the week at 12,609. The NASDAQ Composite Index managed to scratch out a 7 point gain to close at 2,370 while the broader S&P 500 Index picked up a point to close at 1,370.

1:41 PM ET - Stocks and bonds both higher as trading starts to slow. The equity markets have absorbed the poor jobs number, which 2 months ago would have caused stocks to plummet. Oil trading at $105 while gold prices are at $913.

10:24 AM ET - Mortgage Bonds trading near their highest levels of the day due to the poor showing from the jobs report - stocks lower early in the session. As the day wears on stocks may try to mount a rally and could take some luster from bonds.

8:37 AM ET - 80,000 jobs lost in March - less than the minus 50,000 expected and the largest decline since March of 2003. Unemployment rate ticks up to 5.1% - highest since September of 2005. Bonds move higher on the news. Stock futures move to unchanged from much higher levels.

Thank you for considering the comments of someone in the field for 14+ years.

Apr 04, 2008 09:07 AM
Lee Walsh
SecurityNational Mortgage - Lake Mary, FL
Executive Talent Scout for Mortgage Professionals
Thanks Mike!
Apr 06, 2008 02:03 PM
Marie Ogle
Mortgage Processing Solutions - Spokane, WA
Contract Mortgage Processor

While I feel there are still some kinks to work out here with this new bill I am not at all apposed to brokers being required to disclose the ysp.  What I am apposed to however is that they are being required to while the banks and other lending institutions are not.  We all receive it so why should we be the only ones required to disclose it?

Aug 12, 2008 02:59 PM
Anonymous
Commercial Finance Advisors

As if the brokers have really any thing to do with the credit crisis.  We only sell the products that they create.  http://www.cfa-commercial.com

 

Oct 10, 2008 01:58 PM
#26