May 14

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:

Rob Chrisman offers some of the best reporting and analysis around on mortgage news and legislative developments:

Well, let’s not beat around the bush. According to the popular press, the Federal Reserve scored a victory and mortgage bankers suffered a defeat yesterday when the Senate approved an amendment by a 90-9 vote to preserve Fed supervision of hundreds of smaller banks, instead of transferring them to other regulators. Also, the Senate voted 63 to 36 to approve the Merkley amendment and end mortgage kickbacks and “liar loans.” Sometimes one wonders if politicians know basic economic principals - bond math economic dictate that an investor will pay more for a higher yielding instrument, other things being equal. Regardless of my opinion, yield spread premiums are believed to have encouraged brokers to steer consumers into risky, high-interest loans even if they qualified for cheaper loans. And liar loans let consumers qualify for loans they could not possibly repay if they opted to simply state their income or other assets, rather than waiting for verification. The Merkley amendment can be found at Merkley

 

As a result of the Merkley amendment, mortgage lenders and loan originators would be banned from accepting payments based on the interest rate and other terms of the loan, which effectively wipes out loan steering, and as I mentioned kills off the yield spread premium - often a key part of broker’s compensation. Proponents say that the amendment will protect homeowners by prohibiting mortgage lenders and loan originators from receiving hidden payments when they steer homeowners into high-cost loans and will create strong underwriting standards to ensure borrowers have the ability to repay their loans. Opponents say that if this passes, it will spell the end of mortgage banking as we know it, and that borrowers should be allowed to cover their closing costs by accepting a higher interest rate loan.

 

The Senate also voted to keep a measure in the bill, opposed by the mortgage industry, which would require lenders who securitize to retain at least a 5 percent stake in their products. Not even the large lenders can do that if the law applies to conforming product. Democrats on Tuesday defeated a Republican amendment that would have ended government control of the Fannie & Freddie, arguing that the issue should be dealt with separately next year.

 

Final approval of the Senate bill could come next week. These amendments and the law are not final, and remember that the House bill does not have this language so even if they pass the Senate, there will still need to be reconciliation with the House. There are more than 200 amendments filed on the Senate bill. Any legislation that clears the Senate must be reconciled with a reform bill that passed the House of Representatives in December before Obama can sign it into law. (The Senate unanimously adopted a measure that clarifies that small businesses like jewelers and orthodontists that extend credit to customers would be exempt.) Trade organizations are recommending that members pick up the phone and call their elected officials. (http://namb.www.capwiz.com/namb/dbq/officials/)

Tagged with:
May 15

Ruth Lee

Continued from Tuesday … read part one here

For the purposes of this blog, we won’t discuss the differences in flow, mandatory, or bulk sales and their relevance to determining SRP.  We will stick to the fundamentals of “retail” comparison.  If the argument is disclosure of SRP, it should be easier to focus on comparing those two types of transactions in their retail sense. 

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
May 13

Ruth Lee

Brokers have been required to disclose YSP (yield spread premium) on the HUD and GFE to their borrowers for years now, while bankers are not required to disclose their SRP (service release premium).  The argument has been bantered around for years by brokers that this creates an unfair playing field and that bankers should be required to disclose SRP to create parity. 

This piece will attempt to explain the fundamentals of why it is not possible to disclose SRP; however it makes no attempt to address the debate on the clarity, equity , or illumination of YSP disclosure.  Ideally, both sides will gain greater clarity of how to address the issue without throwing out a red herring, like bankers disclosing SRP, and deal with the broader issues needed to effect real changes in consumer protection, parity in opportunity and mortgage reform.

Continue reading »

Tagged with: