The Strange Case of the Shrinking Mini-Correspondent: A Primer on Forensics

WHITE PAPER

 Jonathan Foxx

President & Managing Director

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.

The Bascombe Valley Mystery

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The predictable sometimes is predicted and sometimes it is not. Our biases tend to lead the way in determining a course of action based on perceived predictability. We find ways to convince ourselves that the obvious is not obvious and the necessary is really not essential. It is said that facts are stubborn things, but they are more like heat-seeking missiles if they bear ill-tidings. So, in finding the means toward a “workaround” or any method of circumventing or overcoming a problem, real or imagined, our hearty species indulges in an endless variety of obfuscations, bafflements, blinding bewilderments, miasmic confusion, discombobulating fogs of frenzy, perplexities of interests and foolish entanglements. All for the sake of avoiding ineluctable facts!

A characteristic feature of a predictable event is that it often becomes inevitable. When that happens, no manner of pleadings or remonstrations will undo the already done! It is not as if we did not know that the predictable could become the inevitable. Our biases simply refused to admit that our present plans will oneday meet their future denouement. And so it is that the strange case of the shrinking mini-correspondent took its course, gradually and inexorably, through the annals of mortgage banking to its current resting place on July 11, 2014, with the bloviatingly long title “Policy Guidance on Supervisory and Enforcement Considerations Relevant to Mortgage Brokers Transitioning to Mini-Correspondent Lenders.” Published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”), the issuance is on its way to all supervised institutions as a Policy Guidance (“Guidance”) relating to the Bureau’s exercise of its authority to supervise and enforce compliance with RESPA and Regulation X and TILA and Regulation Z in certain transactions involving “mini-correspondent lenders”.[i]

The billowing wave of the mini-correspondent began as a trickle, intensified as lenders established “mini-correspondent channels,” and gushed into a modest torrent, its demand rising in prominence on January 10, 2014. For it was on this date that the proximate cause for the new mini-correspondent channel was given its impetus, due to the Final Rule pertaining to the Ability-to-Repay guidelines and the requirements of the Qualified Mortgage rule (“Rule”). Many brokers usually seek to charge fees between 2% and 3% per loan transaction; however, under the foregoing requirements, any excess above 3% in total points and fees virtually guarantees that such loans, originated by brokers, will not be eligible for treatment as a Qualified Mortgage (QM). A consequence of the Final Rule and specifically the 3% cap was to create an incentive for many brokers to morph into a new kind of loan originator, termed the “Mini-Correspondent.”

In September 2013, in anticipation of the Rule’s compliance effective date coming just months away, my colleague, Michael Barone,[ii] and I published a White Paper and article in which we discussed the challenges facing the mini-correspondent channel. The White Paper was entitled “The Mini-Correspondent Channel: Pros and Cons.”[iii] In the article’s penultimate section, titled "Mini-Correspondents and the CFPB," the following observation was made:

“Before concluding please consider these final points.

Has anyone given consideration as to what the CFPB might take as a position when a tremendous amount of mortgage brokers transform themselves into mini-correspondents with the primary purpose of avoiding QM’s 3% points and fees cap? We surely have, and so have many others. The CFPB has not commented on this issue, but you bet they will at some point down the road. 

It is possible that the CFPB will take no issue with mortgage brokers becoming mini-correspondents! After all, this has been done for years, and when done correctly, it has been a valuable intermediary step for a brokerage firm that wishes to transition from broker to lender. 

But would it shock anyone if the CFPB took issue with the mini-correspondent channel and tried to eliminate it to the extent it is used to avoid the 3% points and fees cap? This would not be difficult. The CFPB could modify the exception to loan originators of the entity that makes the credit decision or take any number of other actions to prevent the mini-correspondent channel from growing solely for the benefit of avoiding the 3% cap. For now, we have to wait and see what their position on mini-correspondents will be.”[iv]

We were not soothsayers or prophets. The facts, such as they were, the experience working with applicable mortgage acts and practices, and the regulatory compliance concerns of our clients, gave us a unique purview.

Are we now finding that the mini-correspondent wave is running its course, shrinking in momentum, and undulating to its demise? Let us explore the requirements and implications of the Guidance.[v] Perhaps we will find a way to solve the mystery at the heart of the mini-correspondent surge and derive some insight about its potential fate.

Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.

The Sign of Four

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Due to the Bureau becoming aware of the transitioning of mortgage brokers from their traditional roles to mini-correspondent lender roles, the CFPB has become concerned that some mortgage brokers may be shifting to the mini-correspondent model in the belief that, by identifying themselves as “mini-correspondent lenders,” they automatically alter the application of important consumer protections that apply to transactions involving mortgage brokers. The specific protections that the Bureau cites include provisions in RESPA and its implementing Regulation X,[vi] and TILA and its implementing Regulation Z.[vii] RESPA and TILA were amended by Title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act).[viii] On the compliance effective date of January 10, 2014, the Final Rule (issued in January 2013) required that Regulations X and Z apply certain requirements and prohibitions to compensation paid to a mortgage broker. 

An outline of applicable provisions, as they concern mortgage brokers and compensation, consist of the following four factors:

1.     Disclosure of mortgage broker compensation. 

Regulation X requires that the lender’s compensation to the mortgage broker be disclosed on the Good-Faith Estimate and HUD-1 Settlement Statement.[ix] However, payments received by the lender from an investor as compensation for a bona fide transfer of the loan in the secondary market need not be disclosed.[x]

2.     Inclusion of mortgage broker compensation in “points and fees.” 

Under Regulation Z, compensation paid to a mortgage broker by a consumer or creditor is included in points and fees for purposes of the points-and-fees cap for “qualified mortgages” and for the points-and-fees test for determining whether a mortgage is a “high-cost mortgage” under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA).[xi]   But, the interest paid to a creditor is excluded in points and fees. Excluded also are any points and fees compensation a creditor receives from a third party that purchases the loan.[xii]

3.     Restrictions on mortgage broker compensation.

TILA and Regulation Z[xiii] prohibit certain compensation arrangements between creditors and loan originators, including mortgage brokers.[xiv]

The Mini-Correspondent Channel: Pros and Cons

Several years ago, our firm, Lenders Compliance Group, provided unique guidance to the mortgage division of a bank.* The bank wished to build a special origination platform for its mortgage brokers. At that time, the prevailing regulations required disclosure of the Yield Spread Premium (YSP), and the bank wanted to give their Third Party Originators (TPOs) an opportunity to close in their own name, with their own funds, and, among other things, by-pass disclosure of the YSP. In building the platform for the bank, many features were needed to implement these relationships in accordance with federal and state law, as well as safety and soundness metrics. This all took place at a time when a 3% fee cap on broker revenue was not even a glimmer in the eyes of legislators or regulators, and Elizabeth Warren[i] had yet to promote the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

As Shakespeare wrote in The Tempest, “What’s past is prologue.”

Since the early part of this year, many lenders are building a new origination channel. The proximate cause for the new channel is found in the Final Rule pertaining to the Ability-to-Repay guidelines and the requirements of a Qualified Mortgage (Rule).[ii]

The new channel is meant specifically for brokers who hope to by-pass a 3% cap on loan amounts above $100,000, the new CFPB requirement that substantially and principally affects broker TPOs.[iii] The loans covered by the Rule are first lien and junior lien mortgage loans that are closed-end mortgage loans secured by a dwelling, including home purchase, refinance and home equity loans. (Excluded loans are HELOCs; Timeshares; Reverses; Bridges with a term of 12 months or less and loans to purchase a new dwelling where the consumer plans to sell another dwelling within 12 months; Vacant Lot loans; Loan Modifications not subject to the "refinancing" provisions under TILA; and Business Loans.)[iv]

In particular, many brokers usually seek to charge fees between 2% and 3% per loan transaction; however, as of January 10, 2014,[v] any excess above 3% in total points and fees virtually guarantees that such loans, originated by brokers, will not be eligible for treatment as a Qualified Mortgage (QM). The result of the Final Rule and specifically the 3% cap is to create an incentive for many brokers to morph into a new kind of correspondent, termed the “Mini-Correspondent.” The new origination channel developed by some wholesale lenders is aptly called the “Mini-Correspondent Channel.”

One of us, Jonathan Foxx, has written extensively – both in magazine articles and newsletters – about the Ability-to-Repay guidelines (ATR), the Qualified Mortgage, and the Non-Qualified Mortgage (viz., which he has titled the “NQM”). For additional details and guidance, please read those publications.[vi]

In this article, we are going to explore two interrelated issues. First, we will discuss the 3% cap, its implementation and placement within the QM framework, and the way it affects the originations of the mortgage broker. To do that, we will provide the QM framework into which the 3% cap is situated. Secondly, we will discuss the structure of and certain requirements relating to a mini-correspondent TPO. Bear in mind that this new type of TPO is taking place in a dynamic regulatory environment and loan origination market; therefore, aspects of our observations may change, due to a regulatory response, or other material factors, that pertain to originating loans through this new channel. 

Two Classes of Qualified Mortgages

Essentially, the Rule creates two types of QMs, one of which provides a safe harbor from liability and another which does not provide a safe harbor, but does offer a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the Rule. Obviously, the former is preferred, though the latter is not without its merits.

The safe harbor is only available if the creditor complies with all aspects of the Rule, including, at minimum, all the ATR guidelines, and where the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) on a first lien loan must be within 1.5 percentage points of the “average prime offer rate” (APOR) as of the date the interest rate is set (viz., the APR on a junior lien must be within 3.5 percentage points of the APOR).[vii] If the APR threshold is exceeded, the creditor has a rebuttable presumption of compliance.

The distinction between the safe harbor and rebuttable presumption is very significant. With the safe harbor, a lender obtains a conclusive presumption of compliance and may refute a claim that it violated the Rule, such as not complying with the ATR guidelines. But if the lender obtains only a rebuttable presumption of compliance, a claim can be litigated on the basis of a creditor not making a “reasonable” and “good faith” determination of the borrower’s ability to repay, irrespective of a lender’s complying fully with various aspects of the Rule, such as the ATR guidelines.

The ATR test promulgated by the Rule consists of eight factors. Neither the safe harbor nor the rebuttable presumption is available to a lender solely because a loan is underwritten to the ATR test’s guidelines. The ATR factors require the lender to underwrite and verify (1) current or reasonably expected income or assets, other than the value of the dwelling, (2) current employment status (viz., if the creditor is relying on employment income), (3) monthly payment, (4) monthly payment on any “simultaneous loan” of which the creditor is (or should be) aware, (5) mortgage-related obligations, (6) current debt obligations (including alimony, palimony, and child support), (7) monthly Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio or residual income, and (8) borrower credit history. It should be noted that the ATR test itself does not place limits on points and fees. 

Qualified Mortgage and the 3% Cap

As mentioned above, a QM with an APR that does not exceed the APOR thresholds receives a safe harbor from liability (i.e., compliance with the ATR guidelines). If the APOR thresholds are exceeded, this means that the loan is a higher-priced QM, and, as such, receives the rebuttable presumption of compliance. In effect, the two classes of QM constitute a prime and non-prime market, with the prime entitled to safe harbor and the non-prime entitled to a rebuttable presumption.[viii]

But there are several challenges that a lender must overcome in order to use the safe harbor defense, one of which is the 3% cap. The Rule excludes from the points and fees 3% cap any compensation paid, per transaction, by a mortgage broker to an employee of the mortgage broker and compensation paid by a creditor to its loan officers. Compensation paid by a creditor to a loan originator other than an employee of the creditor (i.e., paid to a broker by a creditor on a lender paid transaction) is included in the 3% cap along with other upfront charges paid by the consumer to the creditor or its affiliates.[ix] Furthermore, the 3% cap includes certain fees paid to affiliates, mortgage originator compensation paid directly or indirectly by the consumer, and amounts imposed by secondary market investors and passed through to borrowers to compensate for credit risk. When these "points and fees" are factored into the loan origination costs, many loans will exceed the 3% limit.[x]