Diversity and Inclusion

In January 2012, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Bureau”) launched the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (“OMWI”).[i] Then, in March 2013, the OWMI published its Annual Report to Congress (“Report”) about the Bureau’s due diligence review of diversity and inclusion in certain work environments. The period subject to review was January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. The Report produced statistical diversity findings relating to the Bureau and other federal agencies and, importantly, indicated a mission to produce diversity findings for regulated entities.[ii]

The Dodd-Frank Act (“Dodd-Frank”) created not only the Bureau’s OWMI but also similar offices at other federal financial regulatory agencies (collectively, the “Agencies”),[iii] tasking them with advising on the impact of the policies and regulations regarding minority-owned and women-owned businesses (collectively, the “OWMIs”).

The follow-up to these studies was the goal of developing standards for (1) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the agency workforce and senior management; (2) increased participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts of the agency; and (3) assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.[iv]

The Report noted that in February 2013 the Bureau entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to access employment demographic survey data. That data will provide the analytical and statistically derived composition of regulated entities. The intent on the part of the Bureau and the OWMIs was to develop common standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of regulated entities and publish a proposal of these standards for public comment sometime in 2013.[v]

On October 23, 2013, the Federal Agencies announced their “common standards” proposal, entitled Joint Standards for Assessing Diversity Policies and Practices of Regulated Entities (“Proposal”).[vi] This is an Interagency Proposal that is meant to “promote transparency and awareness of diversity policies and practices within the institutions.”[vii]

The Proposal sets forth four areas:

1. Organizational commitment to diversity and inclusion;
2. Workforce profile and employment practices;
3. Procurement and business practices and supplier diversity; and
4. Practices to promote transparency of organizational diversity and inclusion.

In developing these proposed standards, the Agencies have expressed their view that there are operative variables, such as an institution’s asset size, number of employees, governance structure, income, number of members or customers, contract volume, location, and community characteristics.

The Agencies notified the public that their respective OMWI Directors held roundtable discussions with a range of parties, including “representatives from depository institutions, holding companies, credit unions, and industry trade groups to solicit input on assessment standards and to learn about the challenges and successes of current diversity programs and policies.”[viii] Roundtable discussions also were held with financial professionals, consumer advocates, and community representatives to gain a greater understanding of issues facing minorities and women in employment and in business contracting in the financial sector.[ix]

The Proposal was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2013, entitled Notice of Proposed Interagency Policy Statement with request for Public Comment.[x] For a period of 60 days from its publication date, this policy statement was available for public comment.[xi] The comments were due by December 24, 2013. To allow the public more time to consider the proposed standards, the Agencies extended the comment period to February 7, 2014. Thus, comments must be received on or before February 7, 2014.[xii]

It is important to institute a policy and procedures for implementing the requirements set forth in the Proposal. In anticipation of the Final Rule, the following provides an outline both of the diversity requirements and the recommended features of a policy statement for diversity and inclusion. 

Diversity: Policies, Practices, and Standards

It should be noted that diversity policies, procedures, practices, and standards of the entities regulated by the Agencies would take into consideration an individual entity’s size and other characteristics, such as total assets, number of employees, governance structure, revenues, number of members and/or customers, contract volume, geographic location, and community characteristics. These characteristics are to be taken into account when establishing an individual entity’s standards. 

Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

The Agencies provide their philosophical position with respect to organizational commitment on the part of an entity’s management. According to the Proposal, “leadership of a successful organization demonstrates its commitment to diversity and inclusion. Leadership comes from the governing body such as a board of directors, senior officials, and those managing the organization on a day-to-day basis.”

Standards

The Proposal offers a ‘high-level’ standard that is meant to promote diversity and inclusion both in employment and contracting. The corporate culture that embraces diversity and inclusion would adopt the following standards:

· The regulated entity includes diversity and inclusion considerations in both employment and contracting as an important part of its strategic plan including hiring, recruiting, retention and promotion.

· The entity has a diversity and inclusion policy that is approved and supported by senior leadership, including senior management and the board of directors.

· The entity provides regular progress reports to the board and/or senior management.

· The entity conducts equal employment opportunity and diversity and inclusion education and training on a regular and periodic basis.

· The entity has a senior level official who oversees and directs the entity’s diversity efforts. For some institutions, these responsibilities are assigned to an executive-level Chief Diversity Officer (or equivalent position) with dedicated including women and minorities, in its hiring, recruiting, retention, and promotion, as well as in its selection of board members, senior management, and other senior leadership positions. 

Workforce Profile and Employment Practices

In the Proposal, the Agencies state that “many entities promote the fair inclusion of minorities and women in their workforce by publicizing employment opportunities, creating relationships with minority and women professional organizations and educational institutions, creating a culture that values the contribution of all employees, and encouraging focus on these objectives when evaluating performance of managers.” It is expected that entities with diversity and inclusion programs will regularly evaluate their programs and identify areas that can be improved.

The Agencies take the position that entities use various analytical tools to evaluate a wide range of business objectives, including metrics to track and measure the inclusiveness of their workforce (i.e., race, ethnicity, and gender). Regulated entities that are subject to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) reporting requirements currently provide data and supporting documentation that serve as analytical tools to evaluate diversity and inclusion programs.[xiii]

For entities not subject to the EEOC and OFCCP reporting requirements, the following outline may serve as a model for data analysis in order to evaluate and assess diversity efforts.

Standards

· An entity that files an annual EEO–1 Report as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or otherwise tracks their workforce data, uses the data to evaluate and assess workforce diversity and inclusion efforts.

· An entity that prepares annual Affirmative Action Plans as required by Executive Order 11246 under the jurisdiction of the OFCCP uses those plans to evaluate and assess workforce diversity and inclusion efforts.

Webinar: New Year, New Rules

Brokers Compliance Group is the Exclusive Compliance Provider of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) and an affiliate of Lenders Compliance Group.

In cooperation with NAMB, we will be providing a quarterly webinar series in 2014.

Each webinar will be devoted to an intense review of important regulatory compliance matters.

• If you are a client of the Lenders Compliance Group of companies, you are entitled to register for FREE.
• Each attendee must individually register.
• NAMB members receive special pricing.
• Non-members of NAMB and non-clients of ours may also register for a small fee.

Our first webinar in the series will be presented on January 30, 2014, at 2PM-EST. Because space is filling up quickly, due to announcements by NAMB and media organizations, we suggest you register as soon as possible.

We are pleased to offer this webinar to our valued clients and colleagues!

Regards,
Jonathan Foxx
President & Managing Director

________________________________________________

WEBINAR OVERVIEW

________________________________________________

DESCRIPTION

New Year, New Rules - Understanding and Implementing

Thursday, January 30, 2014 at 2PM-EST

Webinar Topics:

• How do the Ability-to-Repay (ATR) requirements affect my business?
  

• Qualified Mortgage (QM) and the inconsistent impact on lenders, brokers, and mortgage loan originators
  

• Obstacles and opportunities in Loan Officer Compensation amendments
  

• Lending in the new HOEPA requirements
  

• Appraisals: Latest rules affecting ECOA and Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans
  

In this 90-minute session, we'll discuss the regulatory compliance requirements that you need to implement right away.

________________________________________________

The Hedgehog and the Fox: A Regulatory Parable

The 7^th century BCE Greek lyric poet, Archilochus, observed: "the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”[i] Twenty-two centuries later, Erasmus transliterated Archilochus’s dictum by precisely rendering it into the Latin aphorism: “multa novit vulpes, verum echinus unum magnum.”[ii] When it comes to these two ways of thinking and acting, things didn’t change much between the 7^th century BCE and the 16^th century CE, when Erasmus penned his elucidation.

Isaiah Berlin, the British political philosopher, whose life span stretched nearly the whole 20^th century,[iii] wrote a well-known essay in 1953, inspired by Archilochus’s apothegm. It was entitled “The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History.”[iv]

Of Berlin’s essay, Arnold Toynbee, one of the great historians of our time, wrote:

“This fragment of verse by the Greek poet Archilochus describes the central thesis of Isaiah Berlin's masterly essay on Tolstoy, in which he underlines a fundamental distinction between those people (foxes) who are fascinated by the infinite variety of things and those (hedgehogs) who relate everything to a central, all embracing system.”[v] 

Since its inception, it seemed clear to me that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “Bureau”) is a hedgehog. It tends to view the world through the lens of a single defining idea: consumer financial protection. In accordance with this idea, the Bureau exercises this vision through a single, predominant, and coherent framework of regulations. As a hedgehog, the Bureau stays focused on this one foundational principle and repeatedly, unvaryingly, and rigidly seeks to implement that overriding proposition by applying the same methods and solutions, usually to the exclusion of other possible remedies.

This predilection is not simply a matter of judgment or style. Hedgehogs actually have one grand theory which they seek to extend into many domains, furthering their rule through a fervent belief in the guiding principle. They express their views with confidence; assurance; coolness; obstinacy; unrelenting drive; generally rigid adherence to an impliable mission; unwavering obedience and devotion to a regnant objective; a proclivity to roll results up into an aggregate value; and, a tendency to express themselves with such idiomatic phrases as “mission critical,” “the ends justify the means,” “by and large,” “ball-park figure,” “jack-of-all-trades,” “grand strategy,” “seeing the larger picture,” and “the system is the solution.” Usually, hedgehogs have a unique vision that gives rise to the ability to notice complex circumstances and discern the underlying patterns. In effect, their reach exceeds their grasp. Examples of hedgehogs are Plato, Dante, Proust and Nietzsche.

Residential lenders and originators (the “RMLOs”) are, as a group, foxes - they draw on a wide variety of experiences and do not believe for a second that the world can be boiled down to a single idea, evinced through an all-embracing framework, howsoever cogent it appears to be.

Foxes are skeptical about grand theories. They are constrained in their forecasts, and adaptive to actual events. They tend to be more accurate in their predictions than hedgehogs, since they are more agile in assigning probabilities to their expectations. While hedgehogs see the larger picture, thereby missing opportunities, foxes notice each and every pixel contributing to it, and thus quickly find opportunities. Because the fox is acutely aware of each part of the whole, it devises complex strategies to gain an advantage on the hedgehog. Often, it succeeds in its plans due to this advantage.

The kinds of idiomatic expressions that foxes use are “zero in on something,” “devil's in the details,” “under construction,” “mixed feelings,” “barking up the wrong tree,” “at this stage,” “first in class”, “trying something new,” and “let’s get another pair of eyes on this matter.” Foxes are centrifugal: they pursue divergent ends and usually possess a sense of reality, which keeps them from designing a logistical framework that purports to contain all possibilities. They instinctively know that complexity does not conduce to a unitary structure. Although foxes may have a broad vision and much agility in complex interactions, often their grasp exceeds their reach. Examples of foxes are Montaigne, Balzac, Goethe and Shakespeare.

Foxes pursue many ends at the same time, with much energy and cunning. They see the world in all its complexity. Hedgehogs simplify a complex world into a basic principle or concept that unifies and guides everything. Foxes tend to be scattered, diffused, and inconsistent. For hedgehogs, the world is reductive; that is, all challenges and dilemmas are reduced to simple hedgehog ideas, and anything that does not correlate to the hedgehog idea is without relevance. Hedgehogs see what is essential and ignore the rest.

Generally, the fox’s style is often deprived of rigorous models, specific goals, and global metrics. Foxes learn incrementally, over many iterations of experience. The foxy RMLO has a succinct advantage in swaying the hedgehog Bureau, because it nimbly responds to new information, constantly reconfiguring its market knowledge in reaction to changing circumstances. Such vital information leads to greater performance and the ability to provide solutions that open up new ways for the Bureau to fine tune its single overarching vision.

The Bureau has set compliance effective dates in January 2014 for many new rules that will affect RMLOs. As these rules go into effect, we enter the New Year noting a rather obvious example of the hedgehog’s vision and the fox’s hastening to fulfill it. Their relationship is bound by the unwavering path of the Bureau and the serpentine path of the RMLO. The Bureau’s grand vision presents a broad plan of action that must be implemented. In complying with the Bureau’s rules, the RMLO must bestir itself to be particularly attuned to working with the minutiae of details that are a part of the practical experience of actually originating and servicing residential mortgage loans.

In 2014, here are three questions to keep in mind about the relationship between the Bureau and the RMLO:

1) How prepared is your financial institution to comply with the Bureau’s expectations?

2) Are you ready to implement the Bureau’s complex requirements?

3) Does your company act like the visionary hedgehog or the nimble fox?

Foxes are cunning and have the advantage of knowing how reality works, poking holes in the hedgehog’s grand scheme of things, even as the many spindled hedgehog rolls into a big bulky ball. But beware of that ball! The hedgehog and the fox have learned never to underestimate each other. Although the fox is clever, swift, skilled in action, and knows many tricks, the hedgehog knows one big decisive trick: it can roll itself into a ball of sharp and painful spikes!

__________________________________________________________

 Jonathan Foxx
President & Managing Director
Lenders Compliance Group
Brokers Compliance Group

National Mortgage Professional Magazine - December 2013

---

[i] Archilochos (c. 680–c. 645 BC) was a Greek lyric poet from the island of Paros in the Archaic period.

[ii] Adagia, ("Erasmus") Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (October 27, 1466-July 12, 1536), Paris, 1500, from Robert Bland, Proverbs, Chiefly Taken from the Adagia of Erasmus, with Explanations; and Further Illustrated by Corresponding Examples from the Spanish, Italian, French & English Languages, Volumes 1-2, London, 1814

[iii] Sir Isaiah Berlin, (June 6, 1909-November 5, 1997), British social and political theorist, philosopher and historian of ideas.

[iv] Berlin, Isaiah, The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1953.

[v] Idem