Friday, May 20, 2011

Combining the GFE and TIL Disclosures

Foxx_(2009.04.02)
COMMENTARY: by JONATHAN FOXX
Jonathan Foxx is a former Chief Compliance Officer of two publicly traded financial institutions, and the President and Managing Director of Lenders Compliance Group, the nation’s first full-service, mortgage risk management firm in the country.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced on May 18, 2011 that it has created two alternative prototype forms that are designed to combine the consumer disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The creation of a combined form is required by the Dodd-Frank Act.
The CFPB will use the prototypes in a testing process that will last several months in preparation for the agency's formal proposal of a single form. The agency said that it plans five rounds of evaluation and revision before settling on a final form, and the process will use forms in both English and Spanish.
The prototypes both offer disclosures for a $216,000 adjustable rate mortgage loan. They combine the disclosures required by the current RESPA Good Faith Estimate of Closing Costs and the current TILA disclosures in two-page formats. By selecting the right options, it is possible not only to review the two prototypes but also to comment on which of the two is better and why. The CFPB's webpage also offers separate comment possibilities for consumers and industry participants.
The testing and public feedback process will enable the CFPB to revise the design and refine the content based on how it works for consumers to develop a single form that will officially replace the dual TILA and RESPA disclosure requirements.
The purpose of combining and simplifying the GFE and TIL is to reduce the regulatory burden on mortgage lenders.
Post Separator-2-LCG
Twofer
According to the CFPB, "the feedback process we're starting today is one of the first steps in combining the Truth in Lending form and the Good Faith Estimate into a single, simpler disclosure form."
The new form will consist of two pages. Page one provides an overview of the costs related to the origination of the loan and the monthly payment the consumer can expect, as well as whether or not the amount of that payment will change over time. Page two offers a more detailed explanation of the cost breakdown.
With respect to the prototype forms proffered, here are the questions about which the CFPB requests consideration:
  • Would this form help consumers understand the true costs and risks of a mortgage?
  • Could lenders and brokers clearly and easily explain the form to their customers?
  • What would you like to see improved on the form? 
  • Is there some way to make things a little bit clearer?
Post Separator-2-LCG
Learning from the Mortgage Industry
What is interesting about the CFPB's approach to this major overhaul is its forthright attitude. In offering the new form for industry evaluation, its announcement states that:
"at the heart of our work is the idea that the consumer financial product and services market should work for you. We think we should learn from you what you want to see. One of the best ways to do that is also the simplest: we're asking."
For industry participants accustomed to being told what to do, not asked, this is a welcome attitude. Even when regulators have asked industry members for comments, as a requirement of statutory authority and rulemaking, often most comments are not adopted, adapted, or, in some cases, even acknowledged.
But it should be noted that this is only a first step in a process that will last several months. The testing phase of the disclosure prototypes will take place over the next several months and involve one-on-one interviews with consumers, lenders, and brokers. 
CFPB expects to conduct five rounds of evaluation and revisions through September 2011. Initial rounds of testing will include both English and Spanish language versions. Interviews will be conducted in six cities: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Mary land; Birmingham, Alabama; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Springfield, Massachusetts.
Yet, the CFPB lets us know, even though the process will take some time, "there will be more opportunities to weigh in as we move forward."
What this suggests is that the industry would do well to assist, rather than to resist, the type of cooperation that the CFPB wants to encourage. Ultimately, what is good for the consumer is good for the industry - that is a concept that the industry itself has always maintained as central to its mission.
Post Separator-2-LCG
Option A or Option B  
Of course, commentators will bring their own ideas about the way the form should be designed. Such participation is very important.
Many will look to extrapolate the existing ways of disclosing on the currently separate GFE and TIL disclosures into the new CFPB combined form. That also is needed and valuable.
However you view it, contributing to the process is much better than sitting on the sidelines without an opinion - or not expressing it when given the opportunity.
Post Separator-2-LCG
Library
Law Library Image
Proposal to combine GFE and TIL Disclosures (Option A and Option B)
(5/18/11)
GFE and TIL: Option A
GFE and TIL: Option B

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Loan Originator Compensation - 280 FAQs & 75 Pages

The most comprehensive Questions and Answers analysis is now available:

FAQs Outline - Loan Originator Compensation

Update: May 18, 2011

The FAQs Outline covers virtually all areas affected by the amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as it relates to loan originator compensation and anti-steering provisions and much more!

Post Separator-2-LCG
FAQs Outline
Loan Originator Compensation

280 Questions and Answers
 
75 Pages
 
12 Months Updates Included
 
Email Notification for Updates
 
Download Directly from Secure Portal 

Learn More(1)
                                          
      
                FAQs Outline: $125    
PayPal(1)
Post Separator-2-LCG

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Mortgage Call Reports – FREE Information Kit, Deadlines, Workshops, and FAQs

Filing deadline for the first quarter 2011 was on May 15, 2011. However, updates to the NML took place on Saturday, May 14, 2011, and that update may have affected the ability to file. It is likely that there will be some leeway by the relevant regulatory agencies - but not an obligation - to permit late filers to avoid administrative penalties if the MCR filing takes place within the next few days. The MCR filing must be done even if the company did not conduct any residential mortgage loan activity during the reporting period.

Free Information Kit   
        • FAQs - Mortgage Call Reports - Article, by Jonathan Foxx
        • Privacy Guidelines of NMLS - Synopsis, by Jonathan Foxx
        • NMLS Library Section of Lenders Compliance Group
        • Navigation Guide for Mortgage Call Reports
        • Mortgage Call Report Basics
        • Amending the Mortgage Call Report
        • Requirements by Jurisdiction
        • Practice Worksheet - Standard
        • Field Definitions
        • Expanded Section - Instructions
        • Examples: Wholesale Lender, Retail Lender, Reverses Lender, Mortgage Broker
        • Suite of Services - Lenders Compliance Group
        • NMLS Users Forum - Sponsored by Lenders Compliance Group

Line-Webpage

DEADLINES FOR MORTGAGE CALL REPORT

Residential Mortgage Loan Activity
Due quarterly, within 45 days after every calendar quarter:
  • Quarter 1 data (January 1-March 31) is due May 15
  • Quarter 2 data (April 1- June 30) is due August 14
  • Quarter 3 data (July 1-September 30) is due November 14
  • Quarter 4 data (October 1-December 31) is due February 14
Financial Condition
Due annually, within 90 days of company’s Fiscal Year End

Line-Webpage

SOME FAQS
01Q: Am I required to file the Mortgage Call Report?

A: The Mortgage Call Report must be filed by all licensed Mortgage Brokers, Mortgage Bankers, Wholesale Lenders, Retail Lenders, and companies who make, service, or broker loans secured by residential real estate. The report must also be filed by all exempt companies who employ licensed mortgage loan originators. The report must be filed whether or not any business has been conducted under the license. 

02Q: Do branch offices and originators have to file the Mortgage Call Report?

A: No. The Mortgage Call Report is filed by the Mortgage Broker and Consumer Loan Companies and covers activities for branch offices and originators.

03Q: Do consumer loan licensees who make personal property loans have to file the Mortgage Call Report?

A: No. The Mortgage Call Report must be filed by licensees who make, service or broker loans secured by residential real estate.

04Q: When and what information do companies submit on the Mortgage Call Report if their fiscal year is not a calendar year?

A: The Mortgage Call Report must be submitted within 45 days of the end of the calendar quarter, not a company’s fiscal quarter. The activity information must reflect the data from the calendar quarter.

05Q: Is there a cost for submitting the NMLS Mortgage Call Report?

A: A processing fee will not be imposed in 2011 for filing the Mortgage Call Report. A decision is expected later in the year about any processing fees associated with filing the Mortgage Call Reports for 2012.

06Q: My company operates in multiple states. Do I file the NMLS Mortgage Call Report for each state?

A: Only one Mortgage Call Report is filed per company per quarter. This report includes break out data for each state in which the company is licensed or has licensed mortgage loan originators.

07Q: If I am an approved Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac Seller/Servicer or a Ginnie Mae Issuer but I currently don’t service any loans or issue mortgage pools, do I have to complete the Mortgage Call Report?

A: All state licensed companies or companies employing state licensed MLOs must complete the Mortgage Call Report even if they have had no activity during the reporting period. Companies that did not have activity during a particular quarter will be able to indicate this on the Mortgage Call Report. The system will require companies that have indicated on the MU1 Other Business Section that they are an approved Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac Seller/Servicer or Ginnie Mae Issuer to complete the Expanded Mortgage Call Report.

08Q: I am an approved Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac Seller/Servicer or a Ginnie Mae Issue but I currently do not complete the Mortgage Bankers' Financial Reporting Form (MBFRF), do I have to complete the Mortgage Call Report?

A: All state licensed companies or companies employing state licensed MLOs must complete the Mortgage Call Report even if they have had no activity during the reporting period or have not completed the Mortgage Bankers' Financial Reporting Form (MBFRF). If your state licensed company (or you are a company employing state licensed MLOs) is a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac Seller/Servicer or Ginnie Mae Issuer, you must file the Expanded Mortgage Call Report. Companies that did not have activity during a particular quarter will be able to indicate this on the Mortgage Call Report.

09Q: I am a state licensed subsidiary of a federally regulated institution. Do I have to complete the Mortgage Call Report?

A: All state-licensed companies or companies employing state-licensed MLOs must complete the Mortgage Call Report.

10Q: If my institution is only federally-registered on NMLS and we only employ federally-registered MLOs, must we submit the Mortgage Call Report?

A: Currently only state-licensed companies and companies employing state-licensed MLOs must complete the Mortgage Call Report.

11Q: What do I include in the Broker Fee and Lender Fee fields of Residential Mortgage Loan Activity (RMLA) Section I?

A: Include all fees that your company has collected and retained. Examples include, but are not limited to, origination fees, application fees, servicing release premiums (SRP), and yield spread premiums (YSP). Do not include pass through fees. Note that compensation paid to MLOs is not considered a pass through fee.

12Q: How do I report my MLOs on the Mortgage Call Report?

A: You must enter the NMLS ID of the MLO along with the dollar amount and count of the residential loans that MLO closed during the reporting period. If the MLO had no activity, you would enter zeroes in the amount and count fields but the MLO must be listed for each state they hold a license.

13Q: What if my company had no MLOs during the reporting period?

A: When making the Mortgage Call Report filing, you will have the opportunity to enter information for any of your state licensed MLOs. If you do not have any state licensed MLOs during a reporting period, you would leave this section blank and attest to the filing before submission.

14Q: How do we report warehouse lines of credit?

A: Currently, you must list your warehouse lines of credit on each Residential Mortgage Loan Activity (RMLA) component. While each Residential Mortgage Loan Activity (RMLA) component is reported by state, the lines of credit should reflect all lines of credit the company holds.

15Q: Will the Mortgage Call Report be made available to the public?

A: Company specific reports will not be made publicly available. Aggregate data may be released to the public at a future date.

16Q: What happens to my data once it is submitted?

A: NMLS will process the data and release reports to state regulators on the submitted data. State regulators may also review individual company Mortgage Call Report filings within the system.

17Q: What amount do I report under the application amount, the initial amount on the application or the amount the application closes if it changes?

A: The initial amount on the application should be used when completing the Application data in the Mortgage Call Report.

18Q: What do you mean by “application” for the Mortgage Call Report?

A: Application is defined in the Mortgage Call Report as “an oral or written request for a home purchase loan, a home improvement loan, or a refinancing that is made in accordance with procedures used by a financial institution for the type of credit requested.” The Mortgage Call Report primarily relies on the Regulation B (ECOA) use and definition of application and generally follows Regulation C (HMDA) reporting requirements.

19Q: What happens if we do not file an Mortgage Call Report?

A: A company will be denied license renewal if any quarterly Mortgage Call Report filing is missing or if there are any related administrative penalties still outstanding.

20Q: Is the reporting activity information on the Residential Mortgage Loan Activity (RMLA) component by state based on the location of the property?

A: Yes, the activity information is based on the location of the property and reported by state.
More FAQs from NMLS

Line-Webpage

WORKSHOPS

At this time, only one NMLS-sponsored workshop is offered:


NOTE: In order to register for this event, you will need to create a login ID on the CSBS website. You cannot use your NMLS login ID.

Separator-Glow

Friday, May 13, 2011

Wells Fargo's "Seventeen Worthless Mortgages"

Foxx_(2009.04.02)
COMMENTARY: by JONATHAN FOXX
Jonathan Foxx is a former Chief Compliance Officer of two publicly traded financial institutions, and the President and Managing Director of Lenders Compliance Group, the nation’s first full-service, mortgage risk management firm in the country.

On March 1, 2011, the US Court of Appeals (Fourth Circuit) filed a Per Curiam opinion. In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Old Republic Title Insurance Company, Wells Fargo sought to recover the value of "seventeen worthless mortgages" - the Court's own words! - it purchased from Financial Mortgage, Inc. (FMI), a mortgage banker, in the secondary mortgage market. The scheme involved Title Pro, an agent of Old Republic, colluding with FMI to fraudulently close the real estate transactions underlying Wells Fargo's mortgages. Wells Fargo claimed that Old Republic was contractually bound to indemnify Wells Fargo for its losses. 
The Court ruled in favor of Old Republic! Let's learn why.

Line-Webpage
Commentary and Outline
This Commentary offers a brief outline. I am leaving out citations, where possible, for ease of reading. This outline is not meant to be comprehensive, authoritative, or relied upon for legal advice. It offers only a brief synopsis of the argumentation. For citations, exhibits, and argumentation, read the judicial decision (below).
Line-Webpage
The Scheme
FMI originated mortgages and drew on its warehouse lines from several financial institutions. After the warehouse lenders advanced funds to FMI for a mortgage loan, FMI would then sell the mortgage to secondary investors, use the proceeds to pay back the warehouse lenders, and thereby replenish its lines of credit.
So far, so good.
But this is where the plot thickens.
Beginning May 2004, Wells Fargo entered into a standard Loan Purchase Agreement with FMI. This Agreement set forth the terms required by Well Fargo to purchase from FMI numerous residential mortgage loans secured by a note and deed of trust on real property, properly recorded and free from prior liens.
However, the very mortgages purchased by Wells Fargo from FMI failed at their inception, because FMI misrepresented to Wells Fargo that the mortgages were recorded in Virginia's public records system, providing Wells Fargo with first and exclusive priority over all other creditors. Eventually, Wells Fargo discovered that it actually had unsecured and/or subordinate positions on these loans, because they were not recorded nor free from the prior liens.
Post Separator-2-LCG
An Agency Agreement       
Old Republic, like most title insurance companies, appoints agents to act on its behalf to sign, countersign and issue commitments, binders, title reports, certificates, guarantees, title insurance policies, endorsements, and other agreements under which the insurer assumes liability for the condition of title.
In Old Republic's Agency Agreement with TitlePro, the latter was expressly prohibited from acting as an agent of Old Republic when, on some occasions, TitlePro might serve as a settlement agent. That is, when TitlePro performed such services, the Agency Agreement expressly prohibits TitlePro from acting as an agent of Old Republic.
Post Separator-2-LCG
FMI and TitlePro - Two Ways to Collude
Version One (Variations on a Theme) - 3 Bogus Mortgages
1) FMI secures a buyer of land or a refinancing opportunity.
2) FMI then sends the necessary mortgage documents to TitlePro.
2) TitlePro then uses the loan documents to create the appearance of loan closings (i.e., completing a HUD-1 Settlement Statement, et cetera).
3) TitlePro is now able to obtain funds from FMI's warehouse lenders (which does not include Wells Fargo).
4) After obtaining the funds, TitlePro fails to use those funds to clear title or pay off the pre-existing mortgage.
5) TitlePro transfers the funds to FMI.
6) For many transactions, FMI also creates multiple, unrecorded "first" mortgages on each property by having borrowers sign multiple sets of "original" loan documents at closing. (I'll call these "first" mortgages "bogus mortgages.")
7) FMI fabricates the notes.
8) FMI sells these unrecorded bogus mortgages to several secondary investors, including Wells Fargo.
9) In each of these transactions, FMI fails: (a) to disclose the existence of the other bogus mortgages with prior liens to purchasers of these mortgages and (b) to record the mortgages it subsequently sold.
10) Wells Fargo deals with FMI exclusively, sending payment for the notes directly to FMI's accounts.
11) Wells Fargo does not interact with TitlePro or Old Republic in any way.
Version Two - 14 Bogus Mortgages
1) TitlePro fills out a HUD-1 Settlement Statement and receives loan proceeds from the warehouse lender.   
2) The HUD-1 Settlement Statements requires TitlePro to use these funds to pay off the prior mortgages on the properties.
3) TitlePro fails to pay off the prior mortgages and release them of record.
4) TitlePro also fails to record the new mortgage in favor of FMI that "secured" the notes eventually sold to Wells Fargo.
5) In each of these transactions, FMI fails: (a) to disclose the existence of the other bogus mortgages with prior liens to purchasers of these mortgages and (b) to record the mortgages it subsequently sold.
6) Old Republic does not issue policies on these transactions, because Old Republic's Commitment letters requires the prior mortgages to be "paid and released of record" as a condition of issuing the title insurance policies.
7) For some of these transactions, Old Republic also issues a standard-form closing protection letter (CPL), agreeing to reimburse FMI for losses arising out of an issuing agent's misconduct in closing a transaction.
Post Separator-2-LCG
Scammed!
Wells Fargo now possesses seventeen worthless mortgages, all of which are presently in default.
Post Separator-2-LCG
District Court
When Wells Fargo began this action back in March 2009, it alleged six claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) a business conspiracy in violation of Virginia Code; (3) common law civil conspiracy; (4) fraud; (5) violations of Virginia's Wet Settlement Act, and (6) negligence. For all but the breach of contract claims, Wells Fargo alleged that TitlePro acted as Old Republic's agent when it closed the disputed transactions.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Old Republic because:
1) It rejected Wells Fargo's contention that Virginia's Consumer Real Estate Settlement Protection Act (CRESPA) made Old Republic liable, reasoning that CRESPA does no more than authorize non-attorneys, including title agents, who meet specific statutory conditions to serve as settlement agents.
2) It held that TitlePro did not have actual agency authority because the Agency Agreement explicitly prohibited TitlePro from acting as a settlement agent on Old Republic's behalf.
3) In accordance with Virginia law, it rejected Wells Fargo's theory of apparent authority, reasoning that Wells Fargo did not reasonably rely on Old Republic's conduct or statements allegedly cloaking TitlePro with apparent authority to act as a settlement agent on Old Republic's behalf.   
For these reasons, the District Court also granted summary judgment to Old Republic on the conspiracy, Wet Settlement Act, and fraud claims.
Plus:
4) The District Court rejected the breach of contract claim, reasoning that Old Republic could assert the same defenses against Wells Fargo as it could against the assignor of the contract, FMI, and one such defense -- fraud -- shielded it from contractual liability. (The District Court also ruled that the negligence claim failed because, in negligence claims, the common law duty protecting person or property does not extend to Wells Fargo's acquisition of worthless notes. Wells Fargo did not challenge this holding on appeal.)
Post Separator-2-LCG
Appeals Court
Wells Fargo appealed, arguing that:
(1) an assertedly "ambiguous" agency agreement and Old Republic's course of conduct raise genuine issues of material fact as to the scope of TitlePro's agency;
(2) the District Court misinterpreted CRESPA;
(3) TitlePro furthered the conspiracy by issuing title insurance instruments, as authorized by Old Republic, thus making the latter liable in conspiracy; and,
(4) a provision in Old Republic's title insurance policy absolved Wells Fargo (an innocent purchaser for value) of any fraud-based defenses Old Republic may have against FMI.
Yet the Appeals Court upheld the District Court's ruling. Why?
Post Separator-2-LCG
Back to that Agency Agreement
So, why did the Appeals Court affirm the District Court?
Because there are two provisions of the Agency Agreement, though seeming to conflict with each other, which rather serve separate, but complementary ends.
On one hand, a section requires TitlePro to record documents "necessary to insure the interest," not every document necessary to close the transaction. The primary purpose of this settlement-like duty is to "minimize the risk of loss under the title insurance policies," not create a general agency relationship capturing all the agent's settlement activities.
On the other hand, in another section, Old Republic unequivocally withholds consent for TitlePro to act as an agent when TitlePro performs "any escrow, closing or settlement" services. Courts throughout the country, including those interpreting Virginia law, agree that such an express limitation on agency duties controls.
Accordingly, Wells Fargo ran out of luck and Old Republic was off the hook.
Post Separator-2-LCG
Justice Served?
On November 13, 2008, the owner of FMI, Vijay Taneja, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of federal law and received a sentence of 84 months imprisonment, to be followed by three-years of supervised release.
But what about that little matter of those "seventeen worthless mortgages?"
Click for the Per Curiam Opinion.

Line-Webpage
What do you think?
I would welcome your comments.
Please feel free to email me at any time.
Email Icon

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

TILA Examination Procedures - Revised!

On May 2, 2011, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) issued revisions to its examination procedures. The OTS has revised its examination procedures for closed-end loans as a result of recent Federal Reserve Board (FRB) revisions to Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
Specifically, the revised procedures cover:
(1) Loan Originator Compensation: The prohibition on payments to loan originators, including mortgage brokers and loan officers employed by depository institutions, based on the terms of the transaction, other than the loan amount;
(2) Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act: Required disclosure of payment examples if the loan's interest rate or payments can change and a statement that a consumer is not guaranteed to be able to refinance the transaction in the future;
(3) Appraiser Independence: Requirements for appraiser independence for consumer credit transactions secured by a consumer's principal dwelling, whether a closed-end loan or a home equity line of credit; and
(4) Helping Families Save Their Homes Act: Requirements that consumers receive notice when their mortgage loan has been sold or transferred. Examiners will be required to evaluate whether savings associations meet specific requirements.
Post Separator-2-LCG
LOAN ORIGINATOR COMPENSATION
Revised Examination Criteria
  • A loan originator, including mortgage brokers and mortgage loan officers employed by depository institutions, may not receive compensation that is based on the interest rate of the loan (i.e., a yield spread premium) or other loan terms. Loan originators can continue to receive compensation that is based on a percentage of loan amount.
  • A loan originator that receives compensation directly from the consumer may not receive compensation from the lender or another party.
  • A loan originator may not direct or "steer" a consumer to a mortgage loan that is not in the consumer's interest in order to increase the loan originator's compensation.
  • A loan originator can obtain a "safe harbor" for compliance with the anti-steering requirement by presenting the consumer with loan options that include: 1) the loan with the lowest interest rate; 2) the loan with the lowest interest rate without any risky features (such as prepayment penalties, negative amortization or a balloon payment in the first seven years); and 3) the loan with the lowest total dollar amount for origination points or fees and discount points.
Post Separator-2-LCG
MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE IMPROVEMENT ACT
Revised Examination Criteria
The Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act (MDIA) of 2008 amended the TILA to require that borrowers are alerted to the risk of payment increases before they take out mortgages with variable rates or payments. This amendment requires that lenders' cost disclosures include a payment summary in the form of a table, stating the following:
  • The initial interest rate and the corresponding monthly payment;
  • For adjustable-rate or step-rate loans, the maximum interest rate and payment that can occur during the first five years and a "worst case" example showing the maximum rate and payment possible over the life of the loan; and,
  • The fact that consumers might not be able to avoid increased payments by refinancing their loans.
Post Separator-2-LCG
APPRAISER INDEPENDENCE 
Revised Examination Criteria
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act amended the TILA to include several provisions that protect the integrity of the appraisal process when the consumer's home secures the loan, whether a closed-end loan or a home equity line of credit. 
Specifically, the appraisal independence provisions:
  • Prohibit coercion, bribery and other similar actions designed to cause appraisers to base the appraised value of properties on factors other than their independent judgment;
  • Prohibit appraisers and appraisal management companies from having a financial or other interest in the property or the credit transaction;
  • Prohibit a creditor from extending credit, if it knows, before consummation, of coercion or a conflict of interest;
  • Require that creditors or settlement service providers that have information about appraiser misconduct file reports with the appropriate state licensing authorities; and,
  • Require the payment of reasonable and customary compensation to appraisers who are not employees of the creditors or of the appraisal management company hired by the creditors.
Post Separator-2-LCG
HELPING FAMILIES SAVE THEIR HOMES ACT 
Revised Examination Criteria
The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act amended the TILA to require that consumers be notified of the sale or transfer of their mortgage loan. 
The purchaser or assignee that acquires the loan must provide the required disclosures no later than 30 days after the date on which it acquired the loan.
Post Separator-2-LCG
VISIT LIBRARY
Law Library Image
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)
Consumer Affairs Laws and Regulations:
Examination Handbook - Section 1305
May 2011

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Loan Originator Compensation - FAQs for Mortgage Loan Originators (270 Q&As - 73 Pages!)

The most comprehensive Questions and Answers analysis is now available:

FAQs Outline - Loan Originator Compensation

Update: May 5, 2011

The FAQs Outline covers virtually all areas affected by the amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as it relates to loan originator compensation and anti-steering provisions and much more!

Post Separator-2-LCG
FAQs Outline
Loan Originator Compensation

270 Questions and Answers
 
73 Pages
 
12 Months Updates Included
 
Email Notification for Updates
 
Download Directly from Secure Portal 

Learn More(1)
                                          

      
                FAQs Outline: $125    
PayPal(1)
Post Separator-2-LCG

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Mortgage Call Reports–FREE Information Kit!

As a courtesy to you, we want you to have a helpful FREE Information Kit to assist in preparation for filing the Mortgage Call Report (MCR).
Filing Deadline: 1st Quarter 2011 - May 15, 2011.
See Below For FREE Information Kit! 
 Line-Webpage
 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 
Draft and implement policies and procedures to:
(a) prepare and submit MCRs for an entity, and
(b) prepare and submit MCRs for individual MLOs.

Line-Webpage
ACTION
1. Review NMLS requirements and forms for the MCR.
2. Prepare MCR data requirements for 1/1/11 to 3/31/11.
3. Submit the MCR by May 15, 2011.

Line-Webpage
 TRAINING
NMLS moderated conference call and webinars:
  • Thursday, May 5, 2011 from 3:30 - 5:00 pm ET
  • Monday, May 9, 2011 from 1:30 - 3:00 pm ET
  • Tuesday, May 10, 2011 from 1:30 - 3:00 pm ET 
    Line-Webpage
     QUARTERLY FILING
    All state-licensed companies or all state-registered companies that employ licensed mortgage loan originators.
    Line-Webpage
    WHO - WHAT - WHEN - WHERE – HOW 
     Who files? All state licensed companies or companies employing state licensed mortgage loan originators.
    Entities or Individual MLOs? Some states are still not licensing via the NMLS; consequently, MLOs must submit Mortgage Call Reports if licensed in those states.
    Annual and Quarterly Reports? Many State Banking Departments have indicated that they will accept the NMLS Mortgage Call Report as satisfaction of their state specific reporting requirements.
    How do multiple state licensees file? Only one NMLS Mortgage Call Report is filed per company per quarter, including break out data for each state in which the company is licensed and/or has licensed mortgage loan originators.
    Timeframe? Information must be submitted within 45 days of the end of a calendar quarter. The information must reflect the data from that calendar quarter. 

    Line-Webpage
     MORTGAGE CALL REPORT
    Free Information Kit
    • NMLS Users Forum - Website - Sponsored by Lenders Compliance Group
    • FAQs - Mortgage Call Reports - Article - Authored by Jonathan Foxx
    • NMLS Library Section of Lenders Compliance Group
    • NMLS Mortgage Call Report Basics - NMLSR
    • Privacy Guidelines of NMLS - Synopsis - Authored by Jonathan Foxx
    • Mortgage Call Report Requirements by Jurisdiction - NMLSR
    • Practice Worksheet - Standard - May 2011 - NMLSR
    • NMLS Field Definitions - NMLSR
    • Expanded Section - Instructions - NMLSR
    • Examples: Wholesale Lender, Retail Lender, Reverses Lender, Broker
    • Suite of Services - Lenders Compliance Group