InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
HUD Clarifies Changes to HECM Program, Updates FHA Loss Mitigation Home Retention Options
On September 25, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2013-33, which clarifies the recent changes HUD made to its HECM program earlier this month through Mortgagee Letter 2013-27. The new letter (i) defines mandatory obligation, (ii) adds additional mandatory obligations for traditional and refinance transactions, and for purchase transactions, (iii) identifies items that must be included in the first twelve-month disbursement limit and initial MIP calculation, (iv) states that the monthly increase to the principal limit must include the annual mortgage insurance rate as well as the mortgage note interest rate, (v) corrects the calculation of the life-expectancy set-aside, (vi) makes accommodations for mortgagors who entered into a bona fide sales contract and made an earnest money deposit on a property before the issuance of Mortgagee Letter 2013-27, and (vii) clarifies an exception to the general policy that a mortgagee increase the available principal limit if the mortgagor makes a partial payment. On September 20, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2013-32 to supersede its prior guidance regarding loss mitigation in Mortgagee Letter 2012-22. The letter, among other things, (i) defines “continuous income,” other than wages, for loss mitigation evaluations, and other terms, (ii) establishes the conditions required for a “special forbearance” to be used as a loss mitigation tool, (iii) provides guidance on capitalization of arrearages for modifications and partial claims, and (iv) discusses working with mortgagors in bankruptcy and those failing to complete trial payment plans. Mortgagees are required to implement the policies in Mortgagee Letter 2013-32 by December 1, 2013.
HUD Finalizes Streamlined FHA Reporting Rule
On September 17, HUD issued a final rule that streamlines the FHA financial statement reporting requirements for lenders and mortgagees who are supervised by federal banking agencies and whose consolidated assets do not meet the thresholds set by their supervising federal banking agencies for submission of audited financial statements—currently set at $500 million in consolidated assets. HUD’s regulations currently require all supervised lenders and mortgagees to submit annual audited financial statements as a condition of FHA lender approval and recertification. Effective October 17, 2013, in lieu of the annual audited financial statements, small supervised lenders and mortgagees will be required to submit their unaudited financial regulatory reports that align with their fiscal year ends and are required to be submitted to their supervising federal banking agencies. Only if HUD determines that the supervised lenders or mortgagees pose heightened risk to the FHA insurance fund would such lenders be required to submit audited financial statements. The final rule also makes technical changes to current regulations regarding reporting requirements for FHA-approved supervised lenders and mortgagees.
New York Financial Regulator Extends Subprime Calculation Temporary Order
On August 30, the New York Department of Financial Services extended through September 30, 2013 a temporary order directing New York lenders to disregard the mortgage insurance premium changes effectuated by HUD Mortgagee Letter 2013-04 when calculating APR and fully-indexed rates for purposes of determining whether a loan is a “subprime home loan” under the New York Banking Law.
HUD Issues Three Mortgagee Letters
On August 15, HUD issued three mortgagee letters to announce various changes related to the origination of FHA-insured mortgage loans. Effective for case numbers assigned on or after October 15, 2013, Mortgagee Letter 2013-24 (i) sets forth documentation requirements for conducting credit analysis of collections and judgments, (ii) requires a specified capacity analysis of collection accounts with an aggregate balance equal to or greater than $2,000, (iii) details the required treatment of judgments, and (iv) revises the FHA’s policy on manual downgrades for applications with disputed accounts to reflect the risk associated with derogatory and non-derogatory disputed accounts for factors such as age and size of outstanding balance. In Mortgagee Letter 2013-25, HUD updates FHA’s TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide to reflect the changes announced in Mortgagee Letter 2013-24. Finally, Mortgagee Letter 2013-26 loosens eligibility requirements for certain borrowers adversely impacted by the recession. Specifically, the letter allows for the consideration of borrowers who have experienced a loss of employment or income, or a combination of both, and can document that: (i) certain credit impairments were the result of a loss of employment or a significant loss of household income beyond the borrower’s control, (ii) the borrower has demonstrated full recovery from the event, and (iii) the borrower has completed housing counseling.
HUD Explains Wait and See Approach to Eminent Domain Plans
On August 12, HUD responded to a congressional inquiry about plans announced by certain localities to seize mortgages via eminent domain and potentially refinance them through the FHA. HUD states that while it is concerned about the potential eminent domain actions threatened by some localities, including most recently and aggressively by Richmond, California, HUD also recognizes the “inherent and often indispensable tool” that eminent domain can be for local government to implement public policy. HUD suggests that disputes over this novel proposed use of eminent domain may be a question for the courts and states that, pending further legal and other developments, it does not know whether any new mortgage created out of a seizure would qualify for FHA insurance and cannot currently assess the impact of the seizure of mortgages on the FHA and the broader mortgage market.
HUD Proposes Framework for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, HUD Secretary Promises Increased Enforcement
On July 18, HUD released a proposed rule to refine the fair housing elements of the existing planning process that recipients of HUD funds – states, local governments, insular areas, and public housing agencies (Program Participants) – already undertake. To aid Program Participants, HUD will provide local and regional data to allow Program Participants (i) to evaluate patterns of integration and segregation in their area, (ii) to identify disparities in access to community assets by members of protected classes, (iii) to locate racial and ethnic concentrations of poverty, and disproportionate housing needs based on protected class; (iv) to uncover areas for improvement in their fair housing programs; and (v) to develop the tools, strategies, and priorities to respond to problems identified by the data.
The proposed rule also (i) defines “affirmatively furthering fair housing” to clarify that the phrase requires proactive steps to foster more inclusive communities and greater access to community assets for all groups protected by the Fair Housing Act; (ii) refines current Analysis of Impediment requirements; (iii) requires Program Participants to incorporate fair housing planning in existing planning processes, such as the consolidated plan and PHA Annual Plan; and (iv) encourages Program Participants to take regional approaches to address fair housing issues.
In a speech earlier in the week in which he previewed the proposed rule, HUD Secretary Donovan also promised increased enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, stating: “I want to send a message to all those outside these doors. There are no stones we won’t turn. There are no places we won’t go. And there are no complaints we won’t explore in order to eliminate housing discrimination. Period. . . . HUD is enhancing its enforcement techniques by initiating investigations on our own without waiting for individuals to file complaints. We have more than tripled the number of Secretary-initiated complaints that we have filed since 2008.”
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.
HUD Seeks Comments on Potential Changes to FHA's Quality Assurance Process
Recently, HUD published a notice seeking public comments on “ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness” of FHA’s quality assurance process (QAP). In the notice, HUD explains that it is seeking to enhance its oversight of FHA single-family lenders by evaluating single family quality assurance alternatives that would better align with FHA’s mission. Specifically, HUD aims to ensure that it maintains and improves a quality assurance framework that (i) does not hinder or dissuade lending to FHA-targeted populations; (ii) enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of the QAP; (iii) ensures compensation to FHA for defects resulting from the lender manufacturing process; and (iv) applies fairly to all lenders. In addition, HUD also endeavors to establish a framework that ensures that loans are reviewed within a reasonable time period, post-endorsement; in order to allow FHA to use loan quality findings to improve credit policy and to allow lenders to improve their FHA origination practices. HUD particularly seeks public comments on (i) the types of loan manufacturing or compliance defects found in the QAP that should be subject to indemnification or other administrative remedies or a combination of responses; (ii) how the FHA’s review and comparison of early defaults and claims may achieve an improved assessment of a mortgagee’s performance – for example, HUD is considering establishing a specific standard of defaults and claims which mortgagees should not exceed within a given construct; (iii) whether FHA should establish a threshold manufacturing (or loan deficiency) risk tolerance; and (iv) whether FHA should establish a process to review a statistically significant random sample of loans for each mortgagee within a prescribed time frame after loan endorsement to estimate defect rates. Comments on the potential changes are due by September 9, 2013.
HUD Updates Pre-Foreclosure and Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure Requirements, Extends Unemployment Forbearance
On July 9, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2013-23, which updates pre-foreclosure sale (PFS) and deed-in-lieu (DIL) foreclosure requirements for FHA-approved mortgagees. For a standard PFS, the letter details (i) the deficit income test that mortgagees must use to determine hardship, (ii) the supporting documentation required for such tests, (iii) the method for calculating cash reserve contributions, and (iv) the requirements for approving a PFS based on imminent default. The letter also explains the eligibility requirements for streamlined PFS and DIL, including with regard to military servicemembers. Among numerous other policy changes, HUD also updated the disclosure requirements for all PFS and DIL transactions and outlined certain arms-length requirements for PFS transactions. Mortgagees must implement the new policies by October 1, 2013. Recently, HUD also issued Mortgagee Letter 2013-22 to extend indefinitely its policy to provide special forbearance for unemployed borrowers. That policy, detailed in Mortgagee Letter 2011-23, was set to expire on August 1, 2013.
Insurance Trades Challenge HUD Disparate Impact Rule
On June 26, two insurance associations filed a lawsuit challenging a rule promulgated earlier this year by HUD that authorizes so-called “disparate impact” or “effects test” claims under the Fair Housing Act. The rule provides support to private or governmental plaintiffs challenging housing or mortgage lending practices that have a “disparate impact” on protected classes of individuals, even if the practice is facially neutral and non-discriminatory and there is no evidence that the practice was motivated by a discriminatory intent. The rule also permits practices to be challenged based on claims that the practice improperly creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns. The insurance associations allege that the rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act because it contradicts the plain language of the relevant portion of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits only intentional discrimination. The complaint also alleges that the rule, if applied to homeowners’ insurance, would require insurers “to consider characteristics such as race and ethnicity and to disregard legitimate risk-related factors,” thereby forcing insurers “to provide and price insurance in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with well-established principles of actuarial practice and applicable state insurance law.”