InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FHFA Director Testifies Before Senate Banking Committee, Provides Overview of Housing Finance System and Prospects for Reform
On May 11, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing at which FHFA Director Mel Watt fielded questions from lawmakers about the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) and prospects for housing finance reform. In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) noted that Fannie and Freddie have been in conservatorship for close to nine years, and stated that “a housing finance system dependent on two government sponsored enterprises in perpetual conservatorship is not a sustainable solution.” According to Sen. Crapo, because approximately 70 percent of mortgages are backed by the federal government, “if the housing market experiences a downturn, taxpayers could again be on the hook for billions of dollars.” Ultimately, the Chairman set forth his position that housing finance reform should be considered the “most significant piece of unfinished business following the financial crisis.”
Meanwhile, FHFA Director Watt testified that, under his leadership, FHFA has “responsibly balanced” and met its “multiple statutory mandates to manage the Enterprises’ day-to-day operations.” He also identified some of the key changes and reforms that have taken place during the conservatorships, including: (i) requiring the Enterprises to emphasize sound underwriting practices in their purchase guidelines; (ii) reducing the Enterprises’ retained portfolios by over sixty percent since 2009; and (iii) developing effective loss mitigation programs, which include aligning the Enterprises’ loss mitigation standards and developing updated loan modification and streamlined refinance products to follow the Home Affordable Modification Program and the Home Affordable Refinance Program.
Director Watt also acknowledged that “FHFA knows probably better than anyone that these conservatorships are not sustainable” and urged Congress to act on several issues related to housing finance reform, including:
- developing a transition process to a new housing finance system to avoid disruption to the housing finance market;
- determining whether the federal government should provide taxpayer backing for the conservatorship, and if so, in what form;
- addressing the role the Enterprises might play in the reformed housing finance system and what statutory changes to their organizational structures, purposes, ownership and operations will be needed to ensure that they play their assigned roles effectively; and
- identifying what regulatory and supervisory structure and authorities will be needed in a reformed system, and who will have responsibility to exercise those authorities.
Furthermore, Director Watt noted that under the provisions of the Enterprises’ Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, on January 1, 2018 the $1.2 billion buffer protecting the Enterprises against having to make additional draws of taxpayer support in the event of an operating loss in any quarter would be reduced to zero, at which time “neither Enterprise will have the ability to weather any loss it experiences in any quarter without drawing further on taxpayer support.” Director Watt warned that such a situation could erode investor confidence and “stifle liquidity in ways that could increase the cost of mortgage credit to borrowers.” Accordingly, the Director argued that the Enterprises “need some kind of [capital] buffer to shield against short-term operating losses” that could “result in an additional draw of taxpayer support and reduce the fixed dollar commitment Treasury has made to support the Enterprises.”
Reaction of Industry Organizations. In a statement issued shortly after the hearing, Camden R. Fine, President and CEO of Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), expressed support for Director Watt after his testimony, agreeing about the need for Fannie and Freddie “to retain their earnings and to start rebuilding their capital buffers.” Meanwhile, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) financial policy expert John Berlau was critical of what he called “an unfair, ongoing government policy of confiscating all Fannie/Freddie shareholder profits.” According to Mr. Berlau, the Enterprises’ “perilous financial state is the direct result of the Obama administration’s 2012‘Third Amendment’ policy, which confiscates all of Fannie and Freddie’s profits for the US Treasury.” He argued that curtailing this policy would allow the Enterprises to “retain some earnings and build capital to spare taxpayers another bailout.”
CFPB Releases Supervisory Highlights Focused on Student Lending and Mortgage Servicing
On April 26, the CFPB released its Supervisory Highlights for spring 2017, which outlines its supervisory and oversight actions in areas such as mortgage servicing and student loan servicing. According to the Supervisory Highlights, recent supervisory resolutions have “resulted in approximately $6.1 million in restitution to more than 16,000 consumers.”
Student loan servicing. Bureau examiners reported that student loan servicers (i) routinely acted on incorrect information about whether the borrower was enrolled in school, and (ii) failed to reverse certain charges, including improper late fees and capitalization of unpaid interest, even after they knew they had wrongly ended a deferment.
Mortgage servicing. According to the report, the Bureau continued to see “serious issues for consumers seeking alternatives to foreclosure, or loss mitigation, at certain servicers.” CFPB examiners found problems with premature foreclosure filings, mishandling of escrow accounts, and incomplete periodic statements. Furthermore, examiners found that one or more mortgage servicers:
- failed to identify the additional documents and information borrowers needed to submit to complete a loss mitigation application and then denied the applications for not including those documents;
- launched the foreclosure process prematurely after receiving loss mitigation applications from borrowers, thereby failing to give required foreclosure protections to qualified consumers;
- mishandled escrow accounts by using funds to pay insurance premiums on unrelated loans, creating shortages in the escrow accounts and higher monthly payments for consumers; and
- issued incomplete periodic statements that used vague language such as “Misc. Expenses” and “Charge for Service” when describing transaction activity.
The report also outlined the Bureau’s position on employee production incentives and presented guidance and examples of where “incentives contributed to substantial harm.”
NCUA Issues Guidance on CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rule, FDCPA Interpretive Rule
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) has issued a regulatory alert to federally insured credit unions regarding recent amendments to the CFPB's 2013 Mortgage Servicing Rule, issued on August 4, 2016, and the Bureau’s FDCPA interpretive rule concerning safe harbors from FDCPA liability. The recent amendments to the Mortgage Servicing Rule clarify (i) Regulation X (RESPA) provisions regarding force-placed insurance notices, mortgage servicing policies and procedures, early intervention, and loss mitigation requirements, and (ii) Regulation Z (TILA) provisions regarding prompt payment crediting and periodic statement requirements. The FDCPA interpretive rule provides safe harbor for servicers acting in compliance with specified mortgage servicing rules set forth in Regulations X and Z.
NYDFS Unveils Consumer Bill of Rights for Mortgage Foreclosures; Announces New Regulations for "Zombie Properties"
On December 7, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced the publication of the NYDFS Residential Foreclosure Actions Consumer Bill of Rights – intended to offer guidance to homeowners facing foreclosure in New York. Concurrently, the New York Governor also announced new NYDFS regulations intended to curb the threat to communities posed by vacant and abandoned properties (“zombie properties”) by “expediting foreclosure proceedings, improving the efficiency and integrity of the mandatory settlement conferences, and obligating banks and mortgage servicers to secure, protect and maintain vacant and abandoned properties before and during foreclosure proceedings.”
The Consumer Bill of Rights acts as guidance for homeowners facing foreclosure, and specifies that homeowners have certain rights and obligations, including, among others: (i) the right to stay in the home unless and until a court orders the homeowner to vacate the property; (ii) the right to be represented by an attorney; (iii) the right to be free from harassment and foreclosure scams; (iv) the right to avoid foreclosure by making a full or negotiated payment prior to foreclosure sale; (v) the right to be notified at least 90 days prior to a foreclosure suit being filed; (vi) the right to explore loss mitigation options; and (vii) the right to receive a copy of legal papers in a lawsuit. The Consumer Bill of Rights also outlines various obligations of a homeowner, including to respond to complaints, appearing at court, and negotiating in good faith. Under the law, the court must provide homeowners a copy of the Consumer Bill of Rights at the initial mandatory settlement conference.
With respect to vacant and abandoned properties, the new regulations target blight caused by such zombie properties by, among other things, requiring that bank and mortgage servicers: (i) complete an inspection of a property subject to delinquency within 90 days; (ii) secure and maintain the property where the bank or servicer has a reasonable basis to believe that the property is vacant and abandoned; (iii) report all such vacant and abandoned properties to NYDFS; and (iv) submit quarterly reports detailing both their efforts to secure and maintain the properties and the status of any foreclosure proceedings. The NYDFS Superintendent is authorized under the new regulations to issue civil penalties of $500 per day per property for violations of the new regulations.
Special Alert: CFPB Finalizes Amendments to Mortgage Servicing Rules
On Thursday, the CFPB issued its long-awaited final amendments to the mortgage servicing provisions of Regulations X and Z. The Bureau had sought comment on the proposed rule in December 2014, more than 18 months ago. Spanning 900 pages, the final rule makes significant changes that will impact servicers even as it clarifies several points of confusion with the existing regulations. Most significantly, the amendments extend existing protections to successors in interest and borrowers who have previously been evaluated for loss mitigation under the rules, brought their loans current, and then experienced new delinquencies. The amendments also require servicers to provide modified periodic statements to borrowers in bankruptcy. In coordination with the final amendments, the Bureau published an interpretive rule under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) to address industry concerns about conflicts with the servicing rules.
A summary of the key amendments is provided below. Unless otherwise stated below, the amendments take effect 12 months from the date of publication of the rule in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred. If recent experience is any guide, we anticipate that publication in the Federal Register may be delayed for as long as a month, given the length of the final rule, commentary, and preamble.
Click here to view the full Special Alert.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Melissa Klimkiewicz, (202) 349-8098
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Jon David D. Langlois, (202) 349-8045
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Kathryn L. Ryan, (202) 349-8008
- Christopher M. Witeck, (202) 349-8051
CFPB Issues Principles for the Future of Loss Mitigation
On August 2, the CFPB released consumer protection principles for mortgage servicers to use as they develop new foreclosure relief solutions in anticipation of Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program’s (HAMP) upcoming expiration date (CFPB Principles). The CFPB Principles echo those summarized in FHFA’s, HUD’s, and Treasury’s recently published white paper, “Guiding Principles for the Future of Loss Mitigation: How the Lessons Learned from the Financial Crisis Can Influence the Path Forward.” As previously covered in InfoBytes, the white paper recommends that future loss mitigation programs promote accessibility, affordability, sustainability, transparency, and accountability. The CFPB Principles address accessibility, affordability, sustainability, and transparency, and cite to separate CFPB mortgage servicing rules for standards concerning accountability. In its press release, the CFPB notes that the four principles “do not establish binding legal requirements but instead are intended to complement ongoing discussions among industry, consumer, groups, and policymakers.”
GAO Releases Report on Mortgage Servicing
On July 25, the GAO released a report titled “Mortgage Servicing: Community Lenders Remain Active under New Rules, but CFPB Needs More Complete Plans for Reviewing Rules.” At the request of the House Committee on Financial Services, the GAO report outlines and analyzes the effect of the CFPB’s 2013 mortgage-servicing rules and the banking regulators’ implementation of the Basel III framework on credit unions and community banks’ (collectively, community lenders) mortgage servicing activities. Specifically, the GAO report examines (i) community lenders’ participation in the mortgage servicing market, as well as the potential effect of the new mortgage servicing rules on them; (ii) the potential impact that the Basel III framework could have on community lenders’ decisions to hold or sell Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSR); and (iii) regulators’ processes for estimating the impact of the new regulations.
Overall, the GAO report suggests that community lenders’ decisions to sell or hold MSRs likely will not be affected by the new capital treatment of MSRs under the Basel III framework because their concentration of MSRs is limited: “Most representatives of community banks said that regulatory changes to the capital treatment of MSRs did not require them to sell MSRs or raise additional capital.” Although officials from two community banks with larger concentrations of MSRs suggested that “the rules would prevent the bank from growing as much as it would like,” the GAO concludes that community lenders’ participation in MSR sales is based on several factors other than MSR capital treatment, including volatility in the value of MSRs, compliance risk, and interest rates and prepayments.
According to the report, the new mortgage servicing regulations increased compliance costs for community lenders, but have yet to affect adversely their participation in the mortgage servicing market. In fact, the GAO found that, between 2008 and 2015, the share of mortgages serviced by community lenders doubled. The report states that community lenders continue to service mortgage loans held in portfolio or hold MSRs, despite the increase in regulatory requirements and compliance costs, because such activities generate income and help them to maintain strong customer relationships. Regarding profitability, representatives from one credit union noted that “servicing mortgages provides it with the opportunity to develop borrowers into full members with checking and savings accounts and car loans.” Community lenders further highlighted the significance of working directly with customers encountering errors or difficulty during the loss mitigation process: “Representatives at several industry associations and community lenders [told the GAO] that community banks and credit unions preferred to retain MSRs even if they sold the mortgages in the secondary market because they were able to maintain close customer contact should issues arise.” The report recognizes that, for community lenders servicing 5,000 or fewer mortgages, the CFPB’s exemptions for small servicers and creditors were helpful to their businesses and customers. Still, some community lenders reported having to adjust their business practices to manage increased compliance costs, highlighting increases in fees and interest rates, as well as changes to product offerings.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB must retrospectively review the effectiveness of its mortgage servicing rules by January 2019. According to the report, as of April 2016, the CFPB’s plans for retrospective review are incomplete because agency officials determined that, among other things, it was “too soon to identify the relevant data and because the agency wanted the flexibility to design the most effective method to analyze the rules.” The report states that, without having finalized a review plan, including outlining its proposed methodologies for seeking public input, the CFPB risks not having sufficient time to complete an effective review. As such, the GAO recommends that the CFPB “complete a plan to identify the outcomes [it] will examine to measure the effects of the regulations, including the specific metrics, baselines, and analytical methods to be used.”
Agencies Issue White Paper Regarding Loss Mitigation Programs
On July 25, FHFA, HUD, and Treasury published a white paper titled “Guiding Principles for the Future of Loss Mitigation: How the Lessons Learned from the Financial Crisis Can Influence the Path Forward.” The paper examines the effect of the 2008 financial crisis on the mortgage servicing industry with a focus on loss mitigation programs. Under the 2009 Making Home Affordable (MHA) program, foreclosure alternatives were established to address the needs of homeowners and to improve the mortgage servicing industry’s loss mitigation practices. According to the paper, between April 2009 and the end of May 2016, 10.5 million modification and mortgage assistance arrangements were completed through government programs and private sector efforts. The paper further notes that, as a result of FHFA’s, HUD’s, and Treasury’s programs, regulatory actions, and private sector initiatives, the mortgage industry is “generally better prepared now to provide assistance to struggling homeowners than it was before the crisis.” The improvement “is due, in part, to the adoption of certain homeowner engagement standards including continuity of contact, solicitation timeframes, and certain notice and appeal processes required by the [CFPB].” At the end of 2016, MHA programs, such as HAMP, will come to a close. Based on the agencies’ collective experience with MHA programs, the paper identifies five guiding principles for loss mitigation programs: (i) accessibility, guaranteeing homeowners a simple process for obtaining mortgage assistance; (ii) affordability, “providing homeowners with meaningful payment relief that addresses the needs of the homeowner, the servicer and the investor, to support long-term performance”; (iii) sustainability, offering long-term solutions intended to resolve delinquency; (iv) transparency, “[e]nsuring that the process to obtain assistance, and the terms of that assistance, are as clear and understandable as possible to homeowners, and that information about options and their utilization is available to the appropriate parties”; and (v) accountability, ensuring sufficient oversight of the process to obtain mortgage assistance.
CFPB Releases Special Edition Supervisory Highlights with Focus on Mortgage Servicing
On June 22, the CFPB released its eleventh issue of Supervisory Highlights specifically to address recent supervisory examination observations of the mortgage servicing industry. According to the report, mortgage servicers continue to face compliance challenges, particularly in the areas of loss mitigation and servicing transfers. The report attributes compliance weaknesses to outdated and deficient servicing technology, as well as the lack of proper training, testing, and auditing of technology-driven processes. Notable findings outlined in the report include the following: (i) multiple violations related to servicing rules that require loss mitigation acknowledgment notices, observing deficiencies with timeliness and content of acknowledgement notices; (ii) violations regarding servicer loss mitigation offer letters and other related communications, including unreasonable delay in sending letters; (iii) failure to state the correct reason(s) in letters to borrowers for denying a trial or permanent loan modification option; (iv) failure to implement effective servicing policies, procedures, and requirements; and (v) heightened risks to consumers when transferring loans during the loss mitigation process. Although the report focuses largely on mortgage servicers’ continued violations, it acknowledged that certain servicers have significantly improved over the past several years by, in part, “enhancing and monitoring their servicing platforms, staff training, coding accuracy, auditing, and allowing for great flexibility in operations.”
In addition to outlining Supervision’s examination observations of the mortgage servicing industry, the report also notes that the CFPB’s Supervision and Examination Manual was recently updated to reflect regulatory changes, technical corrections, and updated examination priorities in the mortgage servicing chapter.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Report Highlights Issues Related to Mortgages
On April 26, the CFPB issued its latest installment of reports covering consumer complaints. According to this month’s report, the CFPB has, as of April 1, handled more than 859,000 complaints across all products, with mortgage complaints accounting for approximately 223,100, making it the second most-complained about product after debt collection. Key findings from the report include the following: (i) approximately 51% of mortgage-related complaints relate to consumers encountering problems when they were having difficulty making payments, such as facing prolonged loss mitigation review processes and receiving conflicting and confusing foreclosure notifications during loss mitigation assistance review; (ii) consumers facing issues involving transfers of their loan to another servicer without being properly informed of the transfers; (iii) loan servicers allegedly providing confusing and contradictory information regarding reinstatement amounts, charges and fees, and interest rates; (iv) loan servicers delaying the release of insurance claim funds allocated to property damages despite consumers having provided all required documentation; and (v) consumers facing prolonged and confusing loan origination processes, resulting in the loss of favorable interest rates and the expiration of rate locks. Consistent with past reports, this month’s issue lists the top 20 most-complained-about companies for mortgage-related complaints, as well as the top ten most-complained-about companies across all financial products. Finally, with more than 118,000 complaints submitted from the state’s consumers as of April 1, the report identifies California as its geographical spotlight, noting that complaints from the state have “generally followed the national trend.”