InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Congress Passes Reverse Mortgage Legislation; Senate Banking Committee Approves Broader FHA Reform Legislation
On July 30, the U.S. Senate passed by unanimous consent the Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act, H.R. 2167. The bill, which was passed by the House in June and now goes to the President for his signature, will allow HUD to use notices or mortgagee letters to establish additional or alternative requirements necessary to improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program.
On July 31, the Senate Banking Committee voted 21-1 to approve the FHA Solvency Act of 2013, S. 1376, as amended during committee markup. As previously reported, that bill also includes reverse mortgage provisions, as well as measures to more broadly reform the FHA. The bill as approved by the committee includes amendments that would, among other things, (i) provide that in addition to the principal dollar amount limitation on all insured HECM loans, fixed rate HECMs may not involve a principal limit with a principal limit factor in excess of .61, (ii) allow HUD to promulgate rules to require servicers of FHA loans to enter into a subservicing arrangement with any independent specialty servicer approved by HUD, and (iii) prohibit FHA from insuring a mortgage executed by a borrower who was the borrower under any two residential properties that have been previously foreclosed upon. In addition, during the markup committee members offered and then withdrew numerous amendments that later could be included in the bill that is considered by the full Senate. For example, those amendments would (i) create a statutory requirement that HUD/FHA repay Treasury for any funds needed to stabilize the MMI Fund, (ii) revise the indemnification provisions to provide certainty for lenders, and (iii) provide the FHA additional flexibility in times of financial crisis to ensure it can play a countercyclical role. Finally, committee members agreed to work with the FHA to expand loss mitigation options for individuals who receive income from sources other than employment.
Senate Confirms Anthony West as Associate Attorney General
On July 25, the U.S. Senate confirmed Anthony West to serve as the DOJ’s Associate Attorney General, a position he has held in an “acting” capacity since March 2012. In that role Mr. West advises and assists the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in formulating and implementing departmental policies and programs related to a broad range of issues, including civil litigation, federal and local law enforcement, and public safety. Prior to March 2012, Mr. West served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division – the largest litigating division at the DOJ – where he emphasized the Civil Division's authority to bring civil and criminal actions to enforce the nation's consumer protection laws, and served in various positions on the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. In addition, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division's home page indicates that Jocelyn Samuels is serving as Acting Assistant Attorney for the Civil Rights Division. Ms. Samuels previously served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for that division and as Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. She replaces Thomas Perez who recently was confirmed to serve as Secretary of Labor.
Senate Committee on Aging Scrutinizes Short-Term, Small Dollar Loans
On July 24, the Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing titled “Payday Loans: Short-term Solution or Long-term Problem?” that included discussion of several short-term, small-dollar credit products. Although the Committee’s jurisdiction is intended to cover policy issues related to older Americans, the hearing reviewed small dollar products more generally. Numerous Senators, including committee Chairman Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) scrutinized bank deposit advance products and, building off the CFPB’s testimony and earlier white paper, characterized them as payday loans that trap consumers in a cycle of debt. Sen. Nelson suggested that banks have an obligation to provide customers with alternatives and a range of options to meet their needs, while Sen. Donnelly (D-IN) and others repeatedly raised the concept of a 36% national usury cap. Committee members, with the help of a representative from Maine’s financial regulator, tried to build a record in support of federal legislation to address alleged practices of online lenders, including charges that such lenders often avoid state licensing requirements to circumvent state usury caps. Committee members and witnesses also discussed the role of banks in assuring debits from customer accounts are compliant with state law.
Housing Finance Reform Bills Advance in Congress
On July 24, the House Financial Services Committee approved a comprehensive housing finance reform bill, outlined recently by Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). The Chairman has indicated that the bill could move to the House floor for consideration by the full body shortly after the August recess and that in the interim he will work to explain the bill to his conference and build support. The House bill differs in several substantial ways from a Senate proposal. For instance, the House bill provides for an overhaul of the Federal Housing Administration while the Senate Banking Committee intends to address the FHA separately from, and in advance of, the Senate’s broader housing finance reform bill. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing this week on its FHA legislation and intends to amend and vote on the bill next week.
Senate Banking Leaders Offer Bipartisan FHA Reform Bill
On July 15, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) released a discussion draft of a bill intended to improve the solvency of the FHA’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI Fund). As with legislation recently passed by the House, the bill would allow HUD to manage its HECM program through mortgagee letters. Unlike the House bill, this draft further would require that, whenever HUD issues a HECM mortgagee letter, it also initiate a proposed rulemaking that addresses the subject of the mortgagee letter. The bill also would require that, for a mortgage to be eligible for insurance under the HECM program, the mortgage must contain terms and provisions for ensuring property maintenance, establishing escrow accounts, performing financial assessments, or limiting the amount of any payment made available under the mortgage.
In addition, the bill includes changes to the broader FHA insurance program, including provisions similar to those in a bill passed by the House last year with overwhelming bipartisan support. It would, for example, (i) set a minimum annual mortgage insurance premium of at least 55 basis points and increase existing up-front and annual premium caps by 50 basis points, (ii) direct HUD to establish underwriting standards using criteria similar to the CFPB’s criteria for Qualified Mortgages, and (iii) require that the MMI Fund achieve a capital reserve ratio of 3% within 10 years of enactment and establish escalating reporting requirements and program evaluations that take effect immediately if the capital ratio falls below required levels. Further, the bill would, among other things, (i) enhance HUD’s ability to seek indemnification from FHA-approved mortgagees approved to originate loans under the lender insurance program or the direct endorsement program, (ii) expand the criteria HUD uses to compare mortgagee performance and to allow HUD to terminate a mortgagee’s approval on a national basis, and (iii) require HUD to develop a single resource guide for lenders and servicers regarding the requirements, policies, processes, and procedures that apply to loans insured by FHA.
The committee has scheduled a legislative hearing on the bill for July 24, 2013.
Senate Confirms Richard Cordray as CFPB Director
This evening, the U.S. Senate voted 66 to 34 to confirm Richard Cordray as CFPB Director, for a five year term. As is well known, Mr. Corday had been serving in that position as a recess appointee and his recess appointment was set to expire at the end of this year. Moreover, his recess appointment has been the subject of a litigation challenge, and the issue of the validity of recess appointments such as his may have been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in the next term. The Senate vote on Mr. Cordray’s nomination came after several days of Senate debate over the Senate’s confirmation process and filibuster rules that resulted in a path forward on up or down votes on several presidential nominations. It ended a two-year stalemate between Republicans and Democrats over the Mr. Cordray’s nomination, based on a fundamental disagreement regarding the structure and oversight of the CFPB. For example, Republican members of both the Senate and the House have called for the CFPB’s director-led structure to be replaced by a commission, and for the CFPB’s budget to be subject to the annual congressional appropriations process.
There may be movement on one potential change to oversight of the CFPB. Concurrent with the agreement to vote on Mr. Cordray’s nomination, Senator Portman (R-OH) announced a bill that would establish an office of inspector general for the CFPB. Currently the Bureau shares an inspector general with the Federal Reserve Board. Also, following the confirmation vote, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee immediately dropped his objection to Mr. Cordray testifying before that committee and stated that the committee will call him to testify on the CFPB’s annual report as soon as practicable.
The confirmation of Mr. Cordray, and the expected confirmation of new presidential nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, may impact the Supreme Court’s pending review of presidential recess appointment power, a case we have written about on several other occasions, including most recently when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Other nominations of interest remain pending. For example, the President has nominated Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) to serve as FHFA Director. The Senate Banking Committee was set to vote on that nomination this morning, but postponed the vote until Thursday.
Bipartisan Group of Senators Propose Housing Finance Reform Bill
On June 25, Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Bob Corker (R-TN) announced the introduction of a new bill to reform the secondary mortgage market. The bill, known as the Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act, has bipartisan support from several other members of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill is designed to draw private capital back into the secondary mortgage market by providing a limited government guarantee to qualifying mortgage-backed securities (MBS). It would replace over a period of time Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and in their stead establish the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC), which would oversee a variety of secondary market utility functions, many of which are similar to those under development by the FHFA. Under the new system, the FMIC would insure MBS securitized by FMIC-approved issuers, provided that the MBS place in the first loss position a private investor with at least 10 cents in equity capital for every dollar of risk. FMIC-insured MBS also would be required to be collateralized by “eligible mortgages” – mortgages that, among other things, meet the CFPB’s ability to pay requirements, have a down payment of at least five percent, and are below the conforming loan limit. The FMIC also would have responsibility for approving bond guarantors to provide credit enhancement, servicers eligible to service loans in MBS pools, and private mortgage insurance companies to insure mortgages with a loan-to-value ratio above 80 percent. The bill also would establish an affordable housing fund subsidized through fees on securitized loans and would grant the FMIC authority to back the entire MBS market for a limited period of time in emergencies.
SCOTUS To Hear Recess Appointment Case, Potential Implications for CFPB Director
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the federal government’s challenge to a January 2013 decision by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made by President Obama in January 2012 during a purported Senate recess were unconstitutional. NLRB V. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281. Last month, the Third Circuit similarly invalidated a different NLRB recess appointment made by President Obama.
CFPB Director Richard Cordray was appointed in the same manner and on the same day as the NLRB members, and his appointment is the subject of a lawsuit currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. Cordray, whose recess appointment is due to expire at the end of this year, was re-nominated by President Obama this year to serve a full term as director, but his confirmation is being held up in the Senate. All but two Senate Republicans have pledged to oppose Mr. Cordray for the position unless oversight of the CFPB is altered, including by changing its governance structure to a commission structure.
In its review, the Supreme Court will address two questions presented by the government, as well as a third the Court added. The government’s petition asked the court to determine (i) whether the President’s recess appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions and (ii) whether the President’s recess appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess. The Court also signaled its intent to address the issue of Senate pro forma sessions with a question it added - whether the President's recess appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions. The Court is likely to hear the case in the fall and issue its opinion next year.
Senator Warren Pushes Federal Authorities on Bank Prosecutions
On May 14, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent a letter to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, Attorney General Eric Holder, and SEC Chairman Mary Jo White seeking additional information about the agencies’ respective approach to enforcement actions. Specifically, the letter asks whether the agencies have conducted any internal research or analysis on trade-offs to the public between settling an enforcement action without admission of guilt and going forward with litigation to obtain an admission. The letter notes that the OCC recently informed Ms. Warren that it does not have any such internal research or analysis and reiterates Ms. Warren’s concern that “if a regulator reveals itself to be unwilling to take large financial institutions all the way to trial . . . the regulator has a lot less leverage in settlement negotiations.
Senators Raise Concerns about CFPB's Data Collection
On April 23, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing during which CFPB Director Richard Cordray testified on the CFPB’s semiannual report to Congress. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on the CFPB’s collection and use of data. Republican committee members led by Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) criticized the CFPB’s data collection efforts and its developing ability to “watch” consumers, and questioned the CFPB’s legal authority to collect data that could be reverse engineered to connect with specific consumers. Mr. Cordray explained that “big data” is the cutting edge of research in every field and that the CFPB needs to keep pace with financial institutions. According to Mr. Cordray (i) the CFPB’s data are not connected to individuals (aside from complaint data) and are “anonymized”, (ii) much of the data come commercial resources already accessible to firms, (iii) the CFPB obtains certain data from the same sources other regulators have in the past, and (iv) all of the data are essential to the CFPB’s ability to carry out its congressionally mandated work, including rulewriting, reporting to Congress, and undertaking other studies. The hearing also covered numerous other topics including (i) the impact of CFPB’s mortgage rules on small institutions, (ii) the CFPB’s collection and assessment of consumer complaints, (iii) coordination of examinations and information requests among federal and state regulators, and (iv) the status of the CFPB’s arbitration study, portions of which the CFPB may release this year.