Learn. Share. Connect. (54,649 Members)  - Join
 

Site Tools

Join Now or Sign In
for Full Access to All Features
Mortgage Rates
30 Yr FRM 5.01% 0.03%
15 Yr FRM 4.40% 0.01%
1 Yr ARM 4.22% -0.07%
5/1 Yr ARM 4.27% 0.02%
30 YR Tres 4.53% 0.03%
Fed Prime 3.25% 0.00%

Recent Video

President Obama is hosting Democratic and Republican...
A look at the health of the American consumer, with...
Receive Free Email Alerts
Stay up to date on breaking news and blog posts with our free News Alert Service

HR 3915 - Getting Warmer

by Glenn Setzer on
 Email Page   |     Print   |     Bookmark

This bill has passed the house, though many changes were made from initial drafting to the final version.

  • Brokers will still have the ability to earn YSP
  • Borrowers can still finance origination costs
  • The national registry will apply to all originators
  • There will be increased educational and licensing requirements for non FDIC originators
  • High costs loan trigger is dropping from 8% to 5%
  • Prepayment penalties are getting stricter

All of that preceding has been analyzed and discussed elsewhere--form your own opinions as you will. My question is: are you a Socialist or a Capitalist? Wait, I'll make it even simpler. Do you want the government to decide what is best for you? Not simple enough? How about this? Can you read? Barney Frank doesn't think you can.

I have to pause for just a moment to address my favorite quote from the 16th, by Barney Frank:

"it will be very clear to anybody by the time this bill becomes law, there is no possibility of anyone getting higher compensation in return for putting someone in a higher-cost loan."

I love this because it reinforces my yet-to-be-made assertion that certain members of Congress are on a witch-hunt and still don't understand how the market forces behind that statement could actually benefit someone. Representative Feeney's thoughts will serve as a better synopsis for what I'm about to say:

"I happen not to like prepayment penalties, [but borrowers should have a choice to choose a loan whose terms are best suited to them]"

But I digress. The reason 3915 makes me so incensed is that it will still harm those who it professes to protect. I could care less about what you think CAUSED the CRISIS. If you are focused on blame, like Ralph Roberts and Barney Frank, you are missing the big picture. Blame is something people do when they don't understand the intricacies of a situation or are attempting to look proactive. It is also something smart people do to get "shock-jock" press (see guys? I left the door open for you to be smart!)

Incontrovertibly, the entire mortgage value chain was corrupted, right from the consumer all the way to the Wall Street investor. This interconnectedness cannot be overlooked, and to single out several aspects of this very large and complex value chain is irrational at best. So until you understand the value chain, please refrain from enlightening us with your opinion.

But Wait! In the case of 3915, you don't have a choice! Congress will enlighten you with their opinion in the form of legislation whether you like it or not.

Hopefully I'm perceiving the bill's intention correctly. I had assumed it was to PROTECT consumers from bad loans (gross oversimplification). Great news! That's already done! The value chain that created the bad loans has been cut off at the roots! The money to fund those types of loans is no longer available. The devastation felt by the consumer is the same devastation that numerous money sources for alternative loans have felt. So they won't be offering that money any more. Banks won't be funding it. Conduits won't be distributing it. Brokers won't be selling it. Originators won't be telling you about it. So you, the consumer, cannot have it. That's all! Thanks for attending "Market Forces 101," and have a good day.

But Wait Again! That would be the capitalistic end of the story, but Congress seems to be leaning towards Statism (the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty). Congress doesn't think you know how to read. They think that you are lemmings and will continue to be led blindly over the cliff of mortgage ignorance, yet I'd bet a majority of the "Yea" votes for this bill were born of that same lemming mentality: "Oh, if it's to protect consumers, that has to be good, right?"

Wrong.

The NAMB figures the provisions in Title 3 will hurt far more people than they help and I agree. But that's not the point. The point is we're taking away CHOICE. I'm all for stricter standards for originators. I especially like the fact that FDIC loan officers are not held to the same standards as brokers. That will just let my clients know that it is safer to do business with me as I am held to a higher regulatory standard. So the increased regulation is fine. What is not fine is Congress deciding what types of financing are available in a free market.

Now we get to the hardball... This may shock and amaze you. This may be the most radical thing that anyone has ever suggested, but I just have to say it. I may be shunned for all eternity for suggesting something so radical, but it has to be done. No more stalling, here goes nothing:

YOU SHOULD READ SOMETHING BEFORE YOU SIGN IT!!!!!!!

Wow, I actually feel better. Unless consumers trust their mortgage brokers with their lives, they should make sure they understand the terms of what they are getting into. Are there other factors here? Sure. Some brokers didn't even know the harm they were causing, but the fact is the whole value chain got caught up in making bad loans, and the whole value chain has responded. The end all, be all of the value chain is the consumer. No consumer, no loans.

So punish bad people all you want. ANYONE that purposely causes financial harm to another person should be subject to repercussions. In my mind, the whole "going out of business thing" has been a pretty effective repercussion for most of these lenders. Does Congress really need to hyper-regulate the market now? If you want to go back to paying $1200 to fly from NY to LA, be my guest, but I'd rather have the choice to sit on the runway for an hour and pay $243.

My final thought... Perhaps you agree that the consumer really is as ignorant as Congress thinks. There's still a better solution for that. I think we can all agree that the consumer being armed with information is a good thing. If we can't trust consumers to read all their paperwork, maybe we can institute a new policy and one new sheet of paper. Just make one sheet of paper. The title would have to be very catchy "READ THIS OR DIE," or something like that. And it would be required to be presented by the escrow company or real estate attorney in every transaction. It would just collate all of the information that the client is already signing, but dumb it down so they can understand it. For example: "In 3 years, your payment will go up by $400. If you pay it off before then, you will be charged $7500. If you don't make your payments, we will take your house away." And so on...

You get the picture. All the disclosures are ALREADY in place, they just need to be READ. If you want a more simple, all encompassing, "danger danger," disclosure, I'm happy to write it for you and I support it. The point is: let's get those consumers educated! But as long as you have confidence in their ability to read let's allow them to make their own choice! Though 3915's heart is in the right place, and there aspects of it that will actually protect consumers without damaging their individual liberties, there are still parts of the bill that are unnecessary and will only serve to prevent a large demographic from obtaining competitive financing.

EMAIL THIS TO FRIENDS

Contact Your Congressman

SIGN THE PETITION



Comments

Join Now or Login to Post Comments

Anonymous
on
People hear what they want to hear & see what they want to see. They tune out what might happen in the future and care about the 'right now'. Were the disclosures there? Yes! Were they explained? I would hope so! Were they fully understood? Obviously not! Many states are implementing new, more complicated disclosures. We don't need more disclosures that borrs don't understand. We need things simplified so that borrs not only READ but UNDERSTAND what they are signing.
t0m
on
Where all the fraud loans came from? I hate to tell you, but the 'big lenders' are usually the ones to blame. After all, who comes up with the Stated W2 program sure wasn't me. And while I worked at Countrywide, we had Fastrac Stated/Stated with A Paper rates down to a 620. No appraisal 90% of the time go right off the AVM. But I'm sure all those guys really did qualify for their loans... Stop placing blame. You get 3 days right of recission to READ YOUR F'N DOCUMENTS FOR A REASON.
Anonymous
on
Matthew, Ralph Roberts? After being in the Greater Detroit Metro Area for 15 years, you should never judge a book by its cover. Blame is something people also do when they want to divert attention away from themself. Jim
Co3M
on
Often the required documents are not given and there's nothing to read. Or, there are discrepancies between the pre-disclosures and final docs. Borrowers sign reluctantly due to pressure of personal circumstances, or the originator says, "Don't be concerned (by what you read in B&W), we'll take care of that for you later." I advocate strict regulatory compliance at the point of origination, backed by attorneys and consumer advocate experts in the Federal and state consumer protection laws.

A borrower's mortgage docs can be audited for Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) compliance in less than 30 minutes at the closing. In that 30 minute period the expert scans for the Federal TILA's main provisions. We know this works because that's precisely what my consumer protection organization does on a daily basis. We audit mortgage notes for compliance with the consumer protection laws.

If the results of the audit show one or more material violations of TILA, then we connect the borrowers to extremely low cost local attorneys who initiate a Truth-in-Lending legal defense against the predatory lender. About 80% of the time we find material violations. The judges listen and our attorneys can stop most foreclosures dead in their tracks this way.

Having a consumer law attorney or advocate who is expert in the Truth-in-Lending statues perform a quick compliance audit at the closing will nip in the bud all or most of the predatory lending against consumers that has been going on unchecked for decades. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Chris Johnson
on
Nice post. Remember the days when we said "you don't have to make a Federal Case Out of it?" Now, everything is a Federal case, from NCLB, to the PATRIOT ACT to everything else.
Rob
on
Reading all the documents a borrower signs is a great idea! How long do you think it would take a borrower to do that? Would the documents be available prior to closing, or would the borrower have time to read everything, and ask questions, at closing?
Theresa Toussaint
on
Luv it!
roschmaltz
on
The first house bill to modernize the FHA-HUD was a good bill. This bill is 180 from that bill. Yjere is no wonder congress has a current rating of 20%.
anonymous
on
The article by Matthew Graham proves how mis-informed so many people are, especially mortgage brokers. Even if congress does not put them out of business the major lenders in the country will. It doesn't take a rocket scientist for them to figure out where all the fraud and junk loan came from
Ken Cook
on
If you've read my stuff you know how opinionated I am about legislation. I know Ralph Roberts personally, I like him. I don't know Barney Frank, I think he's an idiot. I'm from Georgia and can tell you the Fair Lending Act here did a heck of a lot of damage to the underserved and those it was supposedly designed to protect. Legislators are not business professionals for the most part so don't expect them to make intelligent, well informed decisions when they are trying to buy votes! Keep it up
Virginia
on
I had to laugh at the last part. In Louisiana, and with my lawyer in particular, we are required to spell out in excruciating detail every single document. As my side job I teach "developmental math" (ie 3rd grade level to college students). If I can spend 2 weeks lecturing on addition, I can explain APR! BTW, I'm thrilled to not be seeing any more prepayment penalties.
Brian
on
"I especially like the fact that FDIC loan officers are not held to the same standards as brokers. That will just let my clients know that it is safer to do business with me as I am held to a higher regulatory standard." Do you know the FDIC standards? Before you make vague overviews of regulated institutions you should know what you are talking about. How do you know that it is going to be a higher regulatory standard? Brokers have never had a regulatory standard...
Hank
on
How 19th century! Personal responsibility! Are you kidding?
ANDY ZETTLER
on
great article!! ladies and gents, its very scary that these are elected officials! but they have no idea what their playing with! you want to see this country economy come to a screeching halt! to be continued.............
Brian
on
Brokers have never had a regulatory standard. So you are saying just because brokers have one now consumers are going to be drawn to you over FDIC institutions? Wow, you must not understand consumer trust.
Matt Graham
on

Brian: How do I know it's a higher standard? Well, it says that in the bill. Brokers have never had a standard? Actually we do, (although I know some states don't). At any rate, I'm not counting on that to get me clients. I let good rates and service do that. I'm just saying that ALL LO's should be held to the same standard. If the gov is going to make me jump through more educational and licensing hoops than an FDIC LO, I will wear that proudly.

As far as Ralph Roberts, I don't understand the comment. Please clarify and I will address it if necessary. No brokers are fond of him right now as he has BLAMED the meltdown on a very limited number of factors, and written publicly that brokers make 7 points per deal when I average 1.5%, a lot less than any realtor I know.

If you think I've missed the boat somewhere here, go ahead and email me. I will gladly update the article with your criticisms in quotation marks. And if I have made any factual errors, I will, of course, update them immediately.

Dr. Bill Hatch
on
I agree with Mathew that borrowers should read before signing. The problem is that most people do not know they can demand to see their loan papers one day before closing (they do not read the consumer disclosure booklet). Bill
Marco
on
Mr. Ken Cook you have actually demonstrated who the "mis-informed" is. Greedy homeowner hopefuls who thought there was no end to real estate appreciation chose the "cheap" and "risky" loans because they were gambling that they'd be able to sell the home for a huge profit before the loan reset. If the borrower didn't demand the "low payment" options despite the risk the broker could not have originated the loan. I've heard too many people speak of "equity' as if it's a bank account. Grow up.
Mary Scheulin
on
Most posts seem to miss the core issue. Mortgage originators CAN'T sell a financially questionable mortgage IF the Lenders AREN'T offering them. LENDERS have caused the problem by allowing "financially unhealthy" borrowing. When Congress serves only BIG money interests this hurts average citizens. It's Haliburten, Oil, and NOW the Banks! BUSINESS AS USUAL!!! Why put the troops (mortgage loan officers) in front of a firing squad when it's the Generals ( lenders) who are the criminals?
Russell
on
Excellent article, Matt! We need more people to read and understand the simple facts and concepts you outlined so lucidly. Brian, you said brokers haven't ever had a regulatory standard? So, who exactly has been licensing and overseeing brokers for years, if not a regulatory agency? (Dept of Real Estate, perhaps? oops, that would be a regulatory agency!)
sandy
on
I disagree, this law does need to be enacted. As an underwriter, the problem "Starts" with the borrower and the mortgage broker. They do need stricter laws and consequences. Many brokers/agents one got into the industry to make a fast buck. And many of the borrowers lied on the applications. Half of the loan agents didn't know anything about how to take apps. The SIV and CDO etc vehicles will evolve as well, just like the guidelines are changing.
BRANDON OSWALT
on
Wow another law against us brokers. Even though this law has no real effect on us brokers who do our jobs the right way. Which I think other avenues of our industry need to learn. But what really set me churning is the simple fact that we as brokers and mortgage professionals (which I will agree are few) get slammed from every goverment agency, media outlet, and now even the regular Joe because of the media, for what is going on in the Real Estate market.

My simple resonce to every person who wants to hammer the Mortgage industry is always the same. When People have Jobs People Pay Bills! I don't care what kind of ARM, Interest Rate, Neg Am, Etc. you may have. If you have the money to pay the bill most honest people will pay. Don't get me wrong I know there are tons of BAD BROKERS out there.

I have seen and fired many of them. And I know there are tons of people who were taken by increased appraisal, stated loans and all the other million reasons people can blame the loans for their default. But I believe that if all our Jobs didn't leave and go to Japan, China, Mexico, etc. Then people would be paying thier bills. Yes their loan may not be the best in the country and they would rather have better terms.

Well if people weren't losing their jobs at as rapid pace as foreclosures, then homes values would be up, and people would be able to Refi into better terms. I am from a small town in Ohio and in my area alone, several companies have left town and left our commmunities members jobless - Large companies such GM, Dephi, Ford, Etc. Is it not ironic that the areas that are supported by these large companies are also among the highest foreclosure rates??

Sounds Fishy to me! I think it is about time we wake up and ask our local congressman on why our jobs are going out of the country and what is their plan for replacing those jobs. Stop using the mortgage industry as a scape goat. Spend your time and money on bringing Jobs to our cities and not let them leave over profit sharing! Wake Up America.
Mike Johnson
on
Hey Underwritter ARE YOU NUTS!!! As a broker/LO it is my job to screen the client and and qualify him or her for a particular product that the BANK offers. The last time I checked WE dont have the power to make lending guidelines. If you want to blame someone blame the banks that came out with these programs.
Watchdog
on
The bankers out there have to be laughing that the whole YSP problem gets laid on the brokers lap. Because it is all internal, they do not have to disclose the fact that they pay their LOs a form of YSP for upselling the rate. It gets back to whether something is a problem itself or the abuse of it is a problem. YSP is not a problem by itself but becomes one when it is abused and there is no trade-off for the borrower. Originators who think they are entitled to a bigger compensation because a subprime loan takes more time and effort need to remind themselves that they have chosen to work in that arena. The right to charge whatever you want does not come along with working in the subprime market but many LOs and managers think that it does.

For the underwriter who wants to blame a borrower for fraud and lying on an application, a couple of things: 1) That is the type of stuff you are employed to catch so do your job (I realize it is hard to when you are pressured to approve every loan) and 2) it is rare that a borrower is the driver of fraud. They may be a party to it but they do not know where the "lines" are drawn and are not the ones in charge.
Its a Start
on
It's really interesting how much hooting and hollering can accomplish. NAMB took the best "first step" to represent us. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Kevin
on
Getting rid of YSP and brokers doesn't solve the problem. Bankers price their loans similar to the way brokers do, but they don't have to disclose what they make. Crooks exist in the bank just like they do in the broker world. the best way to combat the YSP issue is to shop around. If a broker can put you at 6.5% and make a good YSP, while at the same time giving you a better rate than the "bank", that should tell you something about how much the bank was going to get you for. Competition and good due diligence are the key to keeping the price of a loan in check.
I read it..did you?
on
Matthew.. thanks for your perspective. Your editorial shows that you're well read , although not as objective as you'd like us to believe. You've made valid points, but pointing the finger at bwrs isn't right either. Seems that Sandy shares your sentiment. Kevin..It's clear that YSP's aren't going away, pay attention. Here's hoping this tussle creates a stronger awareness for the bwr and maybe a required "REFI-101" for the consumer. This is not a change in policy, rather a change in procedures.
Matt Graham
on
Though I do try to be objective, these are Opinion Editorials. I get many emails thanking me for "telling it like it is." And I have yet to receive one email from commenters on this post wishing to engage in a sober and factual debate, just people posting here that want to vent about their own opinion.

When an editor says, "we have a big problem, and it was caused by a broad range of sources," you admit your own narrow focus by arguing with him. That's fine if that's what you believe, but don't accuse me of a narrow focus when I was explicit about the broad nature of the problem.
Carlos
on
clients have a min amount of time to review documents and sign say 45min-1hour, which is not enough time to go over documents throughly and efficently. I would like to see (TILA) making it mandantory to have documents presented to client a week before signing that way the loan officer has to set a time and go over all loan documents so that the borrower understands what they are signing and cannot come back with I did not know and was pressured into signing something I did not understand.Why not