InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae announces updates to Selling Guide
On October 2, Fannie Mae issued SEL-2018-08, announcing updates to its Selling Guide. Notably, Fannie Mae expanded its policy on the use of employment-related assets as qualifying income, increasing to 80 percent the maximum LTV, CLTV, and HCLTV ratios for loans held by asset owners who are at least 62 years old upon loan closing. With respect to jointly-owned assets, all owners must be listed as borrowers on the loan, but only the borrower whose employment-related asset is being used as income must meet the minimum age requirement. Fannie Mae indicates that, until Desktop Underwriter is updated to reflect this policy change, it will accept delivery of any loan that receives an Approve/Ineligible recommendation because of a ratio over 70 percent and has been confirmed compliant by the lender.
Effective immediately, other announced updates to the Selling Guide include: (i) clarifications to employment verification policies for union member borrowers employed in a series of short-term job assignments; (ii) changes intended to provide clarity to Fannie’s expectations for lenders managing third-party originators; and (iii) clarifications to comparable sales requirements for appraisers of MH Advantage homes.
FHA to require second appraisal for certain reverse mortgages
On September 28, FHA announced that it will require a second appraisal for certain reverse mortgage transactions. The purpose of this requirement, according to Mortgagee Letter 2018-06, is mitigation of the risk that valuation of the collateral poses to FHA borrowers and the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. FHA will perform a collateral risk assessment of the appraisal prepared for use in all Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) originations (also known as “reverse mortgages”); whether a second appraisal is required will depend on the results of the assessment. A mortgagee may not approve or close a transaction until a second appraisal, if required, is obtained. If the second appraisal provides a lower value, the mortgagee must use the lower value in the origination of the HECM. The new requirements are effective for all HECM originations with FHA case numbers assigned on or after October 1 through September 30, 2019. FHA will evaluate these program changes at six and nine months to determine if it should extend the requirements beyond the current end date.
FHFA issues guidance for third-party provider relationships
On September 28, FHFA released Advisory Bulletin AB 2018-08, which provides guidance to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Office of Finance (regulated entities) on the evaluation and management of risks associated with third-party provider relationships. (FHFA defines a third-party provider relationship as a “business arrangement between a regulated entity and another entity that provides a product or service.”)
The bulletin sets forth the structure and describes the features of the third-party provider risk management programs that FHFA expects regulated entities to establish. With respect to governance, the bulletin recommends such programs address: (i) the responsibilities of the board and senior management; (ii) policies, procedures, and internal standards; and (iii) the implementation of a reporting system to ensure management and the board are adequately informed. The bulletin also specifies that an effective program include policies and procedures that cover each of the following phases of a third-party provider relationship life cycle: (i) Risk Assessment; (ii) Due Diligence in Third-Party Provider Selection; (iii) Contract Negotiation; (iv) Ongoing Monitoring; and (v) Termination. The bulletin suggests that regulated entities should ensure that their third-party risk management corresponds with the level of risk and complexity of their third-party relationships and notes that not every aspect of the bulletin may apply to every relationship.
FDIC issues RFI aimed at improving its communication with banks
On October 1, the FDIC released a request for information (RFI) on “FDIC Communication and Transparency.” The agency is seeking comments and information on how the agency can make its “communication with insured depository institutions (IDIs) more effective, streamlined, and clear [, including] . . . maximiz[ing] efficiency and minimiz[ing] burden associated with obtaining information on FDIC laws, regulations, policies, and other materials relevant to IDIs.” The RFI requests feedback on all types of communication from the FDIC, including (i) regulations, policies, procedures, and guidance; (ii) news and updates; (iii) industry data, educational materials, and outreach; and (iv) general and direct communications, such as email subscriptions, in-person meetings, and compliance reviews. In addition to general feedback, the RFI includes a list of suggested topics and questions for commenters to address.
Comments must be received by December 4.
Court denies motion to certify classes in TCPA action against national mortgage servicer
On September 27, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied certification of two proposed classes in a TCPA action against a national mortgage servicer, concluding that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, under FRCP 23(b)(3), that common issues of fact or law predominated over any questions affecting only individual members. According to the opinion, plaintiff alleged the mortgage servicer contacted consumer phones, without express consent, using an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) in violation of the TCPA. One of the four named plaintiffs sought to represent two classes of consumers who were contacted by the servicer two or more times between October 2010 and November 2014: (i) those who received calls or texts and told the servicer to cease contact; and (ii) those who received calls and told the servicer it had called the wrong number.
The court found the issue of consent was decisive in this action, relying on authority holding that individual issues of consent predominate where a defendant “provides specific evidence that a significant number of putative class members consented to contact . . . .” The opinion notes that mortgage servicer’s policies contained a process for flagging accounts that withdrew consent to be contacted and if an account was flagged, the autodialer would not initiate calls to that number. The mortgage servicer argued that many consumers gave permission, retracted it, and gave the permission to be contacted again. The court found the servicer had “put forth specific evidence establishing that a significant percentage of the putative class consented to receiving calls.” The court reviewed expert reports by both parties and ultimately concluded that the method for determining class members suggested by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s expert did not “adequately identify a common way to address the individual variations of consent and revocation that occurred in this case.” The court determined that it would need to conduct an individualized consent inquiry for accountholders in each putative class.
New California law requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide commercial financing disclosures
On September 30, the California governor signed SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. Most notably, the act requires financing entities subject to the law to disclose in each commercial financing transaction — defined as an “accounts receivable purchase transaction, including factoring, asset-based lending transaction, commercial loan, commercial open-end credit plan, or lease financing transaction intended by the recipient for use primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes”— the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate” in a form to be prescribed by the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO).
Although the act is effective immediately, the act requires the DBO to first develop regulations governing the new disclosure requirements, and lenders are not required to comply with the provisions of the act until the final regulations are adopted and become effective. Once final regulations are in place, recipients of commercial financing offers will have to sign the disclosures, which are to be provided at the time of the offer. The disclosures must include (i) the total amount of funds provided; (ii) the total dollar cost of the financing; (iii) the term or estimated term; (iv) the method, frequency, and amount of payments; (v) a description of prepayment policies; and (vi) the total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate. Finance companies subject to the law are required to provide the annualized financing rate until January 1, 2024, at which time that portion of the disclosure requirement sunsets. The act also allows for finance companies who offer factoring or asset-based lending to provide alternative disclosures using an example transaction that could occur under the agreement.
Importantly, the act does not apply to (i) depository institutions; (ii) lenders regulated under the federal Farm Credit Act; (iii) commercial financing transactions secured by real property; (iv) a commercial financing transaction in which the recipient is a vehicle dealer, vehicle rental company, or affiliated company, and meets other specified requirements; and (v) a lender who makes no more than one applicable transaction in California in a 12-month period or a lender who makes five or fewer applicable transactions that are incidental to the lender’s business in a 12-month period. The act also does not cover (i) true leases, but will apply to bargain-purchase leases; (ii) commercial loans under $5,000, which are considered consumer loans in California regardless of any business-purpose and subject to separate disclosure requirements; and (iii) commercial financing offers greater than $500,000.
California law establishes small dollar lending pilot program
On September 30, the California governor signed AB 237, which establishes a pilot program under the California Financing Law with the stated purpose of encouraging lenders to provide affordable small dollar loans to consumers. Significant features of the program include: (i) an increase to the upper limit of a permissible loan, from $2,500 to $7,500; and (ii) the authorized imposition of specified alternative interest rates and charges on unsecured loans of at least $300 and less than $2,500.
Under California’s Pilot Program for Increased Access to Responsible Small Dollar Loans (Pilot Program), licensees who choose to participate in the Pilot Program will be required to apply and pay a specified fee to the Commissioner of Business Oversight (Commissioner). Participating licensees will also be required, among other things, to (i) determine a borrower’s ability to repay the loan, factoring in all verifiable outstanding credit and capping total monthly debt service payments at 50 percent of the borrower’s gross monthly income for loans of $2,500 or less and 36 percent for loans greater than $2,500; (ii) establish terms of 180 days or more for loans with principal balances of at least $1,500, but less than $2,500, upon origination; (iii) establish terms of no less than one year and no more than five years for loans with principal balances exceeding $2,500; (iv) implement policies and procedures for the purpose of answering borrower questions and performing reasonable background checks on any finders associated with the licensee’s participation in the Pilot Program (AB 237 permits approved licensees to use the services or one more finders); and (v) reduce the interest rate of each subsequent loan made to the same borrower by a minimum of one percentage point under certain conditions. In addition, AB 237 allows the Commissioner to charge a licensee certain fees associated with the use of a finder, stipulates examinations requirements for licensees and finders, and establishes deadlines and requirements for the Commissioner when submitting required findings from the Pilot Program. The Pilot Program will run through January 1, 2023.
Governor Brown issued a message in conjunction with his signing AB 237 expressing his concern, among others, that increasing the cap on small dollar loans without also providing stricter regulatory oversight may lead to “unintended consequences.” Governor Brown requested that the state’s Department of Business Oversight “increase their vigilance and more carefully oversee both lenders and finders to ensure their actions comply with existing law.”
FTC reaches settlements with student debt relief operators
On September 28, as part of Operation Game of Loans, a coordinated effort between the FTC and state law enforcement, the FTC announced settlements with several individuals and their associated companies (defendants), accused of violating the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule when marketing and selling student debt relief services. According to the FTC, the defendants, among other claims: allegedly (i) misrepresented to consumers that they were affiliated with the Department of Education or a borrower’s loan servicer; (ii) claimed that consumers who paid an up-front fee—as much as $1,000 according to the FTC’s complaint—would qualify for or be approved to receive permanently reduced monthly payments or have their student loans forgiven or discharged; and (iii) engaged in deceptive advertising practices through social media, falsely claiming they could qualify, establish eligibility for, approve, or enroll consumers in loan forgiveness programs.
Under the terms of the settlements, the defendants are permanently banned from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any type of debt relief products or services—or from assisting others to do the same. The defendants also are prohibited from making misrepresentations related to financial products and services. Combined, the settlements total more than $19 million in monetary judgments, all of which have been partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay the entire amount of their respective judgments. The more than $5 million in unsuspended amounts may be used for equitable relief, including consumer redress.
Federal banking agencies request comments on proposal to revise and extend various information collection procedures
On September 28, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC (the Agencies)—with the approval of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)—published a joint notice and request for comment proposing to extend and revise currently approved collections of information for: (i) Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for certain banks (FFIEC 031, 041, 051); (ii) Reports of Assets and Liabilities for branches and agencies of foreign banks (FFIEC 002, 002S); (iii) Foreign Branch Reports of Condition (FFIEC 030, 030S); and (iv) the Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101). Among other things, the proposed revisions generally address the revised accounting for credit losses described within Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13, and include reporting changes for regulatory capital related to the Agencies’ current expected credit losses methodology.
The revisions would begin taking effect March 31, 2019, for quarterly report date respondents; December 31, 2022, for annual report date respondents; and on later dates for certain respondents. Comments must be submitted by November 27.
CFPB bulletin announces changes to supervisory communications
On September 25, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2018-01, which announces changes to how it communicates supervisory expectations to institutions. According to the bulletin, effective immediately, examination reports and supervisory letters will include two categories of findings that convey supervisory expectations: (i) Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs); and (ii) Supervisory Recommendations (SRs). MRAs will continue to be used to outline specific goals for institutions to accomplish in order to correct violations of law, remediate harmed consumers, and address compliance management system (CMS) weaknesses, and will include timeframes for companies to report on its efforts to address MRAs and timeframes for implementation. SRs will be used when the Bureau has not identified violations of law but noted weaknesses in CMS and will contain recommended actions to address weaknesses. The bulletin notes that neither MRAs nor SRs are legally enforceable, but emphasizes the Bureau will consider an institution’s response in addressing the noted concerns when assessing a compliance rating, prioritizing future supervisory work, or assessing the need for an enforcement action.