All posts by synergy

CFPB Issues Final Rule Officially Delaying Effective Date of Prepaid Accounts under Regulations E and Z Rule

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) is issuing this final rule to create comprehensive consumer protections for prepaid accounts under Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act; Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act; and the official interpretations to those regulations. The final rule modifies general Regulation E requirements to create tailored provisions governing disclosures, limited liability and error resolution, and periodic statements, and adds new requirements regarding the posting of account agreements. Additionally, the final rule regulates overdraft credit features that may be offered in conjunction with prepaid accounts. Subject to certain exceptions, such credit features will be covered under Regulation Z where the credit feature is offered by the prepaid account issuer, its affiliate, or its business partner and credit can be accessed in the course of a transaction conducted with a prepaid card. DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2017. The requirement in § 1005.19(b) to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau is delayed until October 1, 2018.

I. Summary of the Final Rule Regulation E implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Regulation Z implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). On November 13, 2014, the Bureau issued a proposed rule to amend Regulations E and Z, which was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2014 (the proposal or the proposed rule).1 The Bureau is publishing herein final amendments to extend Regulation E coverage to prepaid accounts and to adopt provisions specific to such accounts, and to generally expand Regulation Z’s coverage to overdraft credit features that may be offered in conjunction with prepaid accounts. The Bureau is generally adopting the rule as proposed, with certain modifications based on public comments and other considerations as discussed in detail in part IV below. This final rule represents the culmination of several years of research and analysis by the Bureau regarding prepaid products. Scope. The final rule’s definition of prepaid accounts specifically includes payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts that are currently subject to Regulation E. In addition, it covers accounts that are marketed or labeled as “prepaid” that are redeemable upon presentation at multiple, unaffiliated merchants for goods or services, or that are usable at automated teller machines (ATMs). It also covers accounts that are issued on a prepaid basis or

capable of being loaded with funds, whose primary function is to conduct transactions with multiple, unaffiliated merchants for goods or services, or at ATMs, or to conduct person-toperson (P2P) transfers, and that are not checking accounts, share draft accounts, or negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts. The final rule adopts a number of exclusions from the definition of prepaid account, including for gift cards and gift certificates; accounts used for savings or reimbursements related to certain health, dependent care, and transit or parking expenses; accounts used to distribute qualified disaster relief payments; and the P2P functionality of accounts established by or through the United States government whose primary function is to conduct closed-loop transactions on U.S. military installations or vessels, or similar government facilities. Pre-acquisition disclosures. The final rule establishes pre-acquisition disclosure requirements specific to prepaid accounts. Under the final rule, financial institutions must generally provide both a “short form” disclosure and a “long form” disclosure before a consumer acquires a prepaid account. The final rule provides guidance as to what constitutes acquisition for purposes of disclosure delivery; in general, a consumer acquires a prepaid account by purchasing, opening, or choosing to be paid via a prepaid account. The final rule offers an alternative timing regime for the delivery of the long form disclosure for prepaid accounts acquired at retail locations and by telephone, provided certain conditions are met. For this purpose, a retail location is a store or other physical site where a consumer can purchase a prepaid account in person and that is operated by an entity other than the financial institution that issues the prepaid account. The short form disclosure sets forth the prepaid account’s most important fees and certain other information to facilitate consumer understanding of the account’s key terms and

 

Source http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20161005_cfpb_Final_Rule_Prepaid_Accounts.pdf

Does Talking to Yourself Make You Smarter or Crazier ?

You’d probably think someone who talks to themselves out loud is a little “off,” but they might actually be on to something. Talking to yourself is a great way to better understand what you’re learning.

But this type of self-talk isn’t chatting about the weather with your other, more interesting split personality. No, as Ulrich Boser, author of Learn Better, explains at Harvard Business Review, it’s not so much “having a conversation with yourself” as it is “self-explaining.” As in, talking through everything you’ve learned with yourself as if you’re teaching someone else. We know that teaching others is a great way to firmly grasp a subject, but why not focus on your favorite student: you?

Why does this type of monologuing help? Boser says it slows you down so you construct thoughts more deliberately. That kind of reflection allows you to solidify what you’ve learned and gain more from the experience overall. Questions like “What do I find confusing?” and “Do I really know this?” help as well. And talking to yourself allows you to ask “Why?” and answer it as best you can without letting your mind wander. The act of speaking keeps you focused. If you can verbally answer your own difficult questions well, you know that you know what you need to know, you know?

Summarization is also a powerful tool when learning, and even more so when you do it verbally. It can improve your reading comprehension, and it gives you an opportunity to make important connections you may not have seen before. After a lesson, lecture, meeting, or reading session, see if you can explain to yourself out loud what you just learned. It will feel a bit silly at first, but you’ll get over that when you experience the benefits for yourself.

Source:http://lifehacker.com/talking-to-yourself-makes-you-smarter-not-crazy-1794973238

PACE Financing for Clean Energy is the New Mortgage Loan ??

Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs have been an unqualified success story for consumers’ pocketbooks and the economy, helping to finance almost $4 billion in clean energy upgrades and create tens of thousands of jobs. Despite this success, some in Congress are advancing a bill that would undercut the future of these programs.

In early April, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced legislation that aims to increase consumer protection for homeowners using PACE financing to upgrade their homes. ACEEE applauds Senator Cotton for his attempts to ensure that vulnerable consumers, particularly seniors, have the information they need to decide whether to use PACE financing.

We appreciate the good intentions behind S. 838. Unfortunately, instead of helping consumers make more informed choices, the bill could leave consumers unable to make any choice at all. The bill would force regulators to treat PACE financing as a mortgage, which it isn’t. Forcing PACE financing into a regulatory structure designed for a different industry would impose requirements that would be extremely difficult, or even impossible, to meet. The result might not be a safer residential PACE industry, but rather no residential PACE industry.

The bill seems innocuous enough: It would require that PACE financing be regulated under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).

It’s hard to oppose something that sounds as virtuous as “Truth in Lending,” and TILA is a very important safeguard for people who want to take out mortgages and borrow money in other ways. As its name suggests, TILA requires lenders to be clear in disclosing the details of the loans’ terms. It offers additional protections for mortgages, triggering added requirements for anyone engaged in making mortgage loans.

Requiring PACE programs to disclose financial terms and details the same way mortgages and other loans do is a great idea. Markets function best when both lender and borrower understand what they are getting into, and some of the additional protections that TILA gives mortgage borrowers make sense for the PACE industry as well. In particular, giving prospective borrowers three days to change their minds for any reason and without penalty seems like a common sense addition and is one that the PACE industry supports.

However, regulating PACE as though it were a mortgage goes much further and has broader consequences. The Cotton bill would trigger other state and federal regulations intended specifically for the mortgage industry. The combination of regulations would require PACE financers to be licensed mortgage originators, which also doesn’t sound like a bad idea, until you realize that residential PACE programs require local governments to participate. The local governments would have to become licensed mortgage originators, something that would be practically impossible. It would also place restrictions on how the local governments could bill PACE recipients, which would impact their entire property tax collection system. These and related problems demonstrate the perils of trying to apply a regulatory system meant for one industry to another. It would be a shame if well-intended efforts to protect consumers resulted in the elimination of residential PACE.

As we noted in a previous blog post, the Department of Energy, PACE financers, and consumer advocates have been working together to develop guidelines that protect borrowers and still allow PACE to function. California, which is home to the vast majority of PACE activity, recently passed its own legislation to regulate the PACE industry, including the same kind of disclosure requirements and three-day right to cancel as in TILA. That bill had the support of California Realtors, mortgage bankers, and the PACE industry. Leaders in the PACE industry are actively asking Congress to regulate them in a way that offers security for homeowners and allows PACE to continue.

ACEEE is a strong proponent of energy efficiency – when it makes sense. We won’t support a program that takes advantage of consumers. We support efficiency in large part because of the benefits it provides them. Consumers deserve protection, but that doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Rather than pursue a strategy to shoehorn PACE into a regulatory framework meant for something else, a better approach would be to create a new structure that fits the specific features of PACE financing. That would bring security to both sides of the equation and help make the benefits of PACE available to more consumers, not fewer.

Source:http://www.theenergycollective.com/aceee/2403806/new-bill-treat-pace-like-mortgage-take-away-consumer-choice

Dodd Frank Changes Are Coming and the Potential Impact on Commercial Banks

The House Financial Service Committee approved the Financial CHOICE Act 2.0 today, signaling the first concrete move to roll back consumer protections and gut the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 

The committee voted today to send the Financial CHOICE Act 2.0 — introduced by bank-backed Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling last month — to the full house for consideration, likely sometime next month.

According to The Hill, today’s 34-26 party-line vote came after nearly 24 hours of debate and markups of the bill, which included several amendments that would have preserved some of the provisions under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The 589-page legislation [PDF], which has received significant opposition from advocates, retailers, and others, is a revision of the previous Financial CHOICE Act introduced by Hensarling last year.

As it stands, the Financial CHOICE 2.0 Act would, among other things:

• Require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to get congressional approval before taking enforcement action against financial institutions

• Restrict the Bureau’s ability to write rules regulating financial companies

• Revoke the agency’s authority to restrict arbitration

• Revoke the CFPB’s authority to conduct education campaigns

• Prevent the Bureau from making public the complaints it collects from consumers in its Consumer Complaint Database

• Revamp the agency’s structure by allowing the CFPB director to be fired at will by the President

• Require the agency’s budget to be subject to the annual congressional appropriations process

• Prevent the CFPB from having oversight over the payday lending industry

• Rename the CFPB to the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency

• Require banks to undergo stress tests every other year, with banks agreeing to increase their capital never having to undergo stress tests

• Revoke the so-called qualitative test that evaluates a bank’s plan for managing capital and risk

• Remove requirements under the Durbin Amendment [PDF] that guided how much credit card networks could charge retailers for processing debit card transactions

The bill’s approval by the House Financial Service Committee was met with strong opposition by consumer advocates, the retail industry, and other lawmakers.

Our colleagues at Consumers Union say the bill’s approval puts consumers at risk while protecting the financial interests of big banks and shady lenders.

“Congress created the CFPB to ensure consumers get a fair deal and to protect them from predatory practices that can undermine their financial security,” Pamela Banks, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said in a statement. “This bill strips the CFPB of most of its power and would leave consumers vulnerable to fraud, hidden fees and costly gotchas by banks and unscrupulous financial firms.”

Several groups, including the National Consumer Law Center, Americans for Financial Reform, and Public Citizen, lambasted the bill’s provision restricting the CFPB and Security and Exchange Commission’s authority to restrict forced arbitration.

“Contrary to its title, H.R. 10 would deprive consumers and investors of any choice of their day in court when resolving serious disputes with powerful financial institutions and force them into a rigged system,” Amanda Werner, arbitration campaign manager with Americans for Financial Reform and Public Citizen, said in a statement.

Werner noted that forced arbitration clauses “only serve to kill consumer class action lawsuits and cover up widespread fraud and abuse.”

The Center For American Progress said in a statement that the Financial CHOICE Act is only the right choice for Wall Street bankers.

“It shows a blatant disregard for the painful lessons learned during the 2007–2008 financial crisis,” Marc Jarsulic, Vice President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement. “The so-called CHOICE Act removes protections against taxpayer-funded bailouts, erodes consumer protections, and undercuts necessary tools to hold Wall Street accountable.”

Even the retail industry, which had urged Congress to not roll back financial reforms involving debit card transactions, called out the Committee for moving forward with the legislation.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association — which counts a number of major retailers, such as Apple, Best Buy, Gap, Target, Walmart, and others, as members — said in a statement that it would keep fighting the Financial CHOICE Act’s provisions related to swipe fees. RILA and other industry groups believe that by revoking the swipe fee reforms, retailers would pass on the new, more expensive processing costs to consumers.

“While we believe in financial reforms that make sense for America’s community banks and local credit unions, the repeal of hard-fought debit swipe fee reform included in the CHOICE Act gives big banks and card networks a green light to raise costs on every business in America that accepts debit cards,” Austen Jensen, Vice President of Government Affairs and Financial Services for RILA, said in a statement.

On the other side of the debate, the American Bankers Association called today’s vote an important step.

“We commend Chairman Hensarling and members of the Committee for their tireless efforts to help our nation’s banking industry serve their customers and communities,” Rob Nichols, ABA president and CEO, said in a statement, calling the Financial CHOICE Act “needed regulatory relief.”

Source:https://consumerist.com/2017/05/04/financial-choice-act-2-0-rolling-back-consumer-protections-moves-forward/

What Innovations are Critical for Smaller Commercial Banks

When it comes to innovation, community banks generally don’t have the resources—either financial or people—to compete with the country’s largest banks—where the technical staff focused just on innovation alone is probably several times larger than a smaller institution’s entire workforce.

Of course, no one expects smaller banks to compete with a megabank like Wells Fargo & Co., but there are smaller institutions that are playing the innovation game very well.

One of those is Radius Bank, a Boston-based bank that has approximately $1 billion in assets and four years ago made the radical decision to close all of its branches except for one, and convert its local brick-and-mortar retail operation to a digital platform that operates nationally. President and CEO Michael Butler, who appeared on a panel of like minded bankers at Bank Director’s FinXTech Annual Summit in New York on April 26, said that one of the more challenging aspects of that decision was changing Radius’ culture to support its new business strategy. Not all of the bank’s employees were happy about the change in strategy, and Butler said there has been approximately a 50 percent turnover in the bank’s workforce over the last four years. Many of the older employees who resisted the change have been replaced by younger, more tech savvy employees who normally would choose to work at a tech company rather than a bank. Butler said the company has spent a lot of time trying to create the kind of “vibe” that will attract those kind of individuals. “It’s a lot about the people you bring into your organization,” said Butler. At 57, Butler has the background of a traditional banker even though he has led the charge towards digitalization. “My job as the grey hair is to not let them kill themselves,” he joked about some of the bank’s younger staff members.

Another panel member—Jay Tuli, senior vice president for retail banking and residential lending at Leader Bank, a $1 billion bank located in Arlington, Massachusetts—was instrumental in creating ZRent, an online portal that the bank launched in January 2015. It enables landlords to automatically collect rent payments via ACH transactions. ZRent has been a successful customer acquisition tool for Leader Bank, and it is now licensing the software to other banks that want to use it.

Radius and Leader Bank are both located in the Boston area (Arlington is just six miles northwest of the city), so they have the advantage of taping a deep talent pool in one of the country’s most attractive locations, with a number of highly regarded universities in their backyard. Like Radius, Leader Bank has seen a big turnover in its staff over the last eight years. Tuli said that the average age of its 300 or so employees is 31. “There’s a lot of young talent in Boston, and we’ve benefited from that,” he said.

So, if being located in a large urban market is a key element in the innovation game, how to account for the success of Somerset Trust Co., a $1 billion bank headquartered in Somerset, Pennsylvania, a small community situated about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh? Somerset had just 6,277 residents according to the 2010 census. A third panelist, Chief Operating Officer John C. Gill, said the bank has always placed a very high premium on having excellent technology, and sees this as a critical component of its organic growth strategy. Only about 19 percent of its consumer banking transactions occur in the branch today. It sees innovation as an imperative despite its rural location.

Somerset has learned to play the innovation game by partnering up with fintech companies. A couple of years ago, Somerset teamed up with Malauzai Software in Austin, Texas, to develop a mobile banking solution that allows Somerset’s retail banking customers to securely check balances, use picture bill pay and remotely deposit checks from any location or device. There are banks much larger in size that are still working on delivering these capabilities to their retail customers. Working with another fintech company, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania-based BOLTS Technologies, Somerset has also launched a new mobile account opening platform that has greatly reduced the time it takes to open a new account, and is expected to save the bank approximately $200,000 a year. Somerset and BOLTS were finalists in the 2017 Best of FinXTech Awards, which were announced at the event.

Gill said that Somerset is very comfortable partnering with fintech companies to develop product capabilities that it would not be able to develop on its own. “Banks have the customers and low cost funding,” he said. “Fintech companies bring innovation.”

Source: http://www.bankdirector.com/index.php/issues/strategy/can-small-banks-play-innovation-game/

Outlook for the Big Banks Under the Current Administration

For a brief moment, Wall Street stopped on Monday, as if time was suspended in an alternative reality.

President Trump, for the first time as resident of the White House, said aloud that he was considering breaking up the nation’s biggest banks. Of course, he had said it on the campaign trail, but this seemed different.

“I’m looking at that right now,” Mr. Trump told Bloomberg News during an interview in the Oval Office. “There’s some people that want to go back to the old system, right? So we’re going to look at that.”

The headline ricocheted around the email boxes of senior bank executives across the industry. At the Milken Global Conference in Los Angeles, where Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had just finished speaking — and didn’t mention breaking up the banks — the hallways quickly buzzed about the comment, according to participants, as their phones lit up. Shares of bank stocks dived lower within seconds of the headline, only to recover quickly.

Mr. Trump’s comments shouldn’t come as a surprise: His chief economic adviser, Gary D. Cohn — formerly president of Goldman Sachs — has been not-so-quietly trying to socialize the idea of bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that was enacted to prevent investment and commercial banks from combining. The law was repealed in 1999, helping to bring about the supersized banking giants that dominate the market today.

Before Monday’s musings, Mr. Trump’s thoughts on the matter had felt like a theoretical exercise, those who have met with him say.

What would be surprising, however, is if Mr. Trump made it a reality. It would be one thing for him to “do a big number” on Dodd-Frank, the 2010 law that imposed stricter regulations on banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis — he has repeatedly stated that he wants to pare it back, repealing parts of the law. But it would be a much more seismic shift to bring back Glass-Steagall, which would be the equivalent of doing “a big number” on the banks themselves. The biggest names in banking would presumably face the choice of having to shed either their commercial banking arm or their investment banking division.

When Mr. Trump met with business executives in February at the White House, he turned to Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, an unabashed defender of big banks, for advice. JPMorgan Chase would not exist in its current form were it not for the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall.

“There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Mr. Trump said at the time, to the consternation of proponents of more banking regulation.

Viewed through the prism of goosing the economy and creating jobs — as Mr. Trump has pledged his efforts should be viewed — it’s hard to see how breaking up the biggest banks would help, especially in the short term. Indeed, it would most likely have the opposite effect.

Mr. Trump’s chief complaint about Wall Street is that he doesn’t think lenders are extending enough money. “I have so many people, friends of mine, that had nice businesses. They can’t borrow money,” he famously said. “They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow, because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.”

Given that commercial lending is at a record, according to the Federal Reserve, that’s a hard statement to square.

But let’s be generous and assume for a moment that he is right. What is undoubtedly true is that big banks would probably be even more conservative with their loan books during whatever transition would be required to comply with a new version of Glass-Steagall. Such a law would inject as much uncertainty into the economy as Dodd-Frank did initially, when banks were sorting out how they would comply. The process did throw some big banks’ lending into a state of paralysis.

And while proponents of ending too-big-to-fail love to point to the repeal of Glass-Steagall as the culprit, by now that meme should have resolved itself.

“I don’t think that Glass-Steagall was a cause of the crisis,” Ben Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who has no horse in this race, told me matter-of-factly.

Indeed, he said, he would be worried if the law were brought back, because it would hamstring the government if it ever needed to intervene in a crisis similar to what happened in 2008. “If Glass-Steagall had been in effect, we couldn’t have had some of the failing firms taken over,” Mr. Bernanke said. “JPMorgan took over Bear Stearns, and so on.”

On the other hand, Neel Kashkari, the president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve and a former Treasury staff member who oversaw the bailouts of the banks, has been on a campaign to break up the biggest banks, concerned that they still pose too much of a risk to taxpayers if they were to fail.

Mr. Trump’s comments came on the same day that he and his team spoke with about 100 community bankers led by Cam Fine, president and chief executive of the Independent Community Bankers of America. One issue they discussed was the idea of a two-tiered system of regulations, one for big banks and another for community banks. Whether that construct is now being interpreted as a new version of Glass-Steagall or a breakup of the banks remains an open question.

But let’s be clear: If Mr. Trump were to try to bring back what he described on the campaign trail as Glass-Steagall, it wouldn’t be to prevent the next crisis. He would have to be convinced that bringing back the law would stoke the economy. And that’s an even scarier prospect, because it means firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, which have been forced to reduce the risk they take, would ultimately be less regulated.

There are a lot of good reasons to reform Dodd-Frank. And there are lots of good ways to make regulations less onerous to the nation’s smaller banks, which complain they are drowning in legal and compliance bills; giving them some relief could indeed open the loan spigot even more. But both of those measures would be very different from bringing back Glass-Steagall.

Whether Mr. Trump’s talk translates into action on this front remains to be seen. The prevailing view seems to be: “Be prepared for more headline risk for big banks as lawmakers keep piling on the anti-Wall Street rhetoric — most of it will be substantively meaningless,” according to Ian Katz of Capital Alpha, whose comments were highlighted by Ben White of Politico.

Of course, with President Trump, the prevailing view could change in an instant.

Source: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/sorkin-trump-breaking-up-banks.html?referer

Mortgage Insurance and TRID – Helpful Compliance Answers

The Dodd-Frank Act required the CFPB to propose regulation that combines RESPA-TILA disclosures (GFE, TIL, HUD-1). The proposed rules were released July 2012, and on November 20, 2013, the CFPB issued the final Rule. The effective date of the Rule was October 3, 2015.

The Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and the initial Truth in Lending disclosure (initial TIL) have been combined into a new form, the Loan Estimate (LE). The Loan Estimate form is designed to provide disclosures that will be helpful to consumers in understanding the key features, costs, and risks of the mortgage loan for which they are applying, and must be provided to consumers no later than the third business day after they submit a loan application.

The HUD-1 and final Truth in Lending have been combined into another new form, the Closing Disclosure (CD), which is designed to provide disclosures that will be helpful to consumers in understanding all of the costs of the transaction. This form must be provided to consumers at least three business days before consummation of the loan.

FAQs

Where do I disclose MI on the LE and CD?

MI will be disclosed in at least one of the following locations:

  • Projected Payments – Payment Calculation
  • Loan Costs – B. Services You Cannot Shop For
  • Other Costs – F. Prepaids
  • Other Costs – G. Initial Escrow Payment at Closing

What is a triggering event? When completing the ‘Projected Payments’ section, how should I disclose MI payments over time?

A triggering event occurs when a lender must terminate MI under applicable law. Declines in MI premiums are not considered a triggering event. The lender should use the date on which automatic cancellation occurs, even if the borrower may cancel the insurance earlier.

Does the lender have an obligation to send a revised LE if the MI amount changes?

With BPMI Zero Monthly, no payment will be due at consummation. Therefore the MI premiums should not be disclosed as a closing cost on page 2 of the LE or CD. If the creditor is providing a revised LE because a cost unrelated to MI has changed, the creditor should also then re-disclose any MI premium rate change.

What types of MI fall under the 0% tolerance cost?

Any BPMI payment that is not escrowed must be disclosed on the LE and CD, and is subject to 0% tolerance. BPMI Single Premium, the Annual Premium due at closing, the non-escrowed portion of Monthly, and the upfront portion of BPMI Split Premium are subject to 0% tolerance.

Do any types of MI fall under the 10% tolerance cost?

No.

What types of MI fall under the no tolerance cost (best info available)?

Any MI payment that is escrowed, including BPMI Monthly or Zero Monthly, the monthly portion of Split Premium, the escrowed annual portion of Annual Premium, and any Lender Paid MI (LPMI), is NOT subject to a tolerance rule. These MI premiums must be based on best information reasonably available, but are otherwise not subject to tolerance limitations.

Has the new definition of a loan application changed anything for how I do business with Genworth?

No.

Where do I disclose LPMI?

LPMI does not need to be disclosed on the LE. But it will need to be disclosed on the CD as follows:

  • LPMI Single and LPMI Split premium paid at consummation must be disclosed on page 2, section B. “Services Borrower Did Not Shop For” as “Paid by Others.”
  • LPMI Monthly or Annual premium payment made at consummation disclosed on page 2, section F. “Prepaids” as “Paid by Others.”

If the LE initially includes Monthly BPMI, but then switches to a Single Premium MI premium plan, does the creditor need to re-disclose?

Yes. You will need to issue a revised LE within three business days of receiving “information sufficient to establish” that the borrower has opted for BPMI Single and disclose that under section B. “Services You Cannot Shop For.” However, if the initial LE includes the BPMI Single, and then the borrower opts for Zero Monthly, the opposite is not true. The creditor does not need to re-disclose.

Will Genworth still offer Amortized (Declining) Renewal on their MI premium plans?

Yes, we will still offer Declining as well as Level (Constant) renewals. For Amortized (Declining) Renewal, the renewal rate is applied annually to the outstanding loan balance for years 1 – term. Declines in MI payments are not considered “triggering events” and therefore do not need to be disclosed on the Projected Payments section of the new forms.

Where can I go to learn more about TRID and how it impacts mortgage insurance?

A: Check out Genworth Mortgage Insurance’s pre-recorded TRID webinar here delivered by MaryKay Scully, Director of Customer Education. MaryKay’s training will cover an introduction to the timeline for disclosure, implementation, and regulation as well as online resources for more detailed information, and the new definition of an “Application”.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Genworth Mortgage Insurance believes the information contained in this publication to be accurate as of 11/2/2015. However, this information is not intended to be legal advice. Genworth is providing this information without any representations or warranties, express or implied, and shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive or consequential damages due to any person’s reliance on the information. Lender should satisfy itself that this guidance is adequate for its purposes.

source: http://www.mortgagecompliancemagazine.com/regulatory/frequently-asked-questions-mortgage-insurance-trid/

The Top US Cities for Starting a Business

Entrepreneurship is a fixture of the 21st century iteration of the American Dream. Today, about 10% of the US labor force works for themselves, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Still, it’s no easy task to get a business off the ground. In many cases, the state of a local economy can greatly affect your chance of success.

In it’s latest report , WalletHub determined the best places for launching a business based on three categories:

A total of 18 metrics were gathered for each of the 150 most populated US cities. WalletHub then calculated the total score – the highest of which was a 56.85 – for each city based on its weighted average across all metrics to determine the final ranking (read the full methodology here ).

Cities in the Midwest and the South proved to be the best places to start a business in 2017. Below, check out the top-16 cities, along with their total score and individual rankings for business environment, access to resources, and business costs.

Lincoln, Nebrask

Laredo, Texas

Port St. Lucie, Florida

Lubbock, Texas

Raleigh, North Carolina

Springfield, Missouri

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Amarillo, Texas

Austin, Texas

St. Louis, Missouri

Durham, North Carolina

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Charlotte, North Carolina

Salt Lake City, Utah

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Source : http://www.businessinsider.com/best-big-cities-for-starting-a-business-in-2017-2017-5/#1-oklahoma-city-oklahoma-16

State Regulation & Compliance Updates

Electronic Notary Public Act – The state of Arkansas enacted provisions (House Bill 1479) creating the Electronic Notary Public Act. These provisions are effective on August 18, 2017 (or 91 days after adjournment of the current legislative session).

Colorado

MLOs and Mortgage Companies – The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Real Estate, adopted provisions (REG: 4 CCR 725-3) regarding mortgage loan originators and mortgage companies including updates and repeals to its definitions and professional standards. These provisions are effective on March 17, 2017.

Oregon

Surety Bond Information – The Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Finance and Securities Regulation, adopted provisions (REG: OAR 441-730-0026; -860-0020, -0025, -0050; 885-0010)  allowing licensees to submit required surety bond information through the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. These provisions were effective on April 1, 2017.

South Dakota

Nonresidential Mortgage Loans – The state of South Dakota enacted provisions (HB 1179) relating to exemptions from licensure for nonresidential mortgage loans that do not exceed a specified amount. These provisions are effective on July 1, 2017.

Virginia

Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act – The state of Virginia enacted provisions (HB 1608) regarding its Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act. These provisions are effective on July 1, 2017.

Tenants by the Entireties – The state of Virginia amended its provisions (HB 2050) by providing that no interest in real property held as tenants by the entireties may be severed by written instrument unless it is a deed signed by both spouses as grantors. These provisions are effective on July 1, 2017.

Electronic Filing of Land Records – The state of Virginia modified its provisions (SB 870) relating to the electronic filing of land records. These provisions are effective on July 1, 2017.

Protection of Escrow Funds and Security Deposits of Tenants Post-Foreclosure Sale – The state of Virginia amended its provisions (SB 866) relating to the protection of escrow funds and security deposits for tenants after a foreclosure sale. These provisions are effective on July 1, 2017.

Notice to Tenant in Event of Foreclosure – The state of Virginia amended its provisions (HB 1623) regarding residential rental properties by providing that a notice of foreclosure acts as a termination of the rental agreement by the landlord and the tenant may remain in possession on a monthly basis until the new owner provides a notice of termination of the monthly occupancy. These provisions are effective on July 1, 2017.

Residential Property Disclosure Act – The state of Virginia modified its provisions (HB 2034) relating to its Residential Property Disclosure Act. These provisions are effective on July 1, 2017.

Wyoming

Uniform Consumer Credit Code – The Wyoming Department of Audit, Division of Banking, adopted provisions (Chapters 1, 3 and 5: Uniform Consumer Credit Code) regarding licensing fees as well as updating obsolete language and consolidating other existing rules. These provisions are effective immediately.

Uniform Power of Attorney Act – The state of Wyoming enacted provisions (Senate File 105) creating its Uniform Power of Attorney Act that includes providing for applicability, sample forms and the repeal of provisions relating to durable powers of attorney. These provisions are effective on January 1, 2018.

Source : http://www.mortgagecompliancemagazine.com/regulatory/monthly-state-regulatory-update-april-2017/

Current Technology Developments and the Impact on Mortgage Operations

Mayela and Ben Scott couldn’t wait to refinance their home. They had purchased it in 2014, when they were expecting a baby, and were only able to make a small down payment. Their FHA mortgage came with a steep monthly insurance payment.

By early 2017, they thought they were ready. The value of the home had increased, and the couple had built up some equity, bringing their stake in the house over 20% and qualifying them for a conventional loan with no monthly mortgage-insurance premiums.

Refinancing also seemed like a chance to try something different. “The original process was eye-opening because I had no idea all the financial reporting that went into it,” Ben said in an interview. “But I did feel the process was a bit archaic given that you can do everything else on line. I remember coming away thinking, Did we need to have four or five meetings with a lender?”

Then a high-school classmate of Ben’s mentioned on social media that he’d just worked with a startup called Morty to refinance his mortgage. Intrigued, Ben and Mayela contacted Morty, and completed the refi “piece by piece,” uploading documentation and e-signing forms whenever they found a few minutes between work and taking care of their toddler.

The Scotts’ monthly mortgage payment fell from $3,100 to $2,600, and the entire process was completed on their schedule. There hadn’t been anything wrong with the original mortgage process, which they completed with a local mortgage broker recommended by family, they said. But there was something not quite right about it, either — a sense that the endless paper shuffling wasn’t necessary for compliance or regulation. It felt like make-work.

“It almost seemed to me that the system was in place to justify [the broker’s] position,” Ben told MarketWatch.

‘Kayak for mortgages’

Morty was founded in 2016 by Brian Faux, a mortgage-industry veteran, and Nora Apsel and Adam Rothblatt, both programmers. Rothblatt and Apsel were both interested in online consumer marketplaces, and Faux wanted to wring the inefficiencies and the patronage out of mortgage lending.

(It’s worth noting that none of the three founders, all 32 years old, has ever taken out a mortgage or bought a home. Here’s Rothblatt on why: “The millennial generation are now the single largest segment of first-time home buyers, and urban dwellers still lag behind, so statistically speaking we will all buy eventually, just later, and probably more expensive homes.”)

Faux sometimes describes Morty’s business model as a “Kayak for mortgages.” Most people know mortgages can be obtained online — thanks in part to the aggressive marketing of Quicken Loans and others — but are less aware that most online providers are lenders that offer only their own products. Morty currently works with 12 lenders and can offer hundreds of products to any borrower.

The founders want Morty to be as self-directed, or not, as customers want it to be. They still remember the email from a customer who’d completed a refinance in nine minutes and was convinced he’d done something wrong. Borrowers who don’t want or need to talk to a Morty employee never have to — but they’re welcome to ask for help.

What the founders are evangelical about is bringing transparency to the process. They want borrowers to understand what’s going on, and how all the mortgage-market players are making money from the transaction. They want Morty to be not as much a salesman as an “honest broker.”

The person who helped the Scotts with the original mortgage may have been a mortgage broker — a category of professionals that’s been heavily regulated since the financial crisis. Or he may have been what’s often called a loan officer.

Anyone who brokers a mortgage is paid a commission on the mortgage that’s a percentage of the loan and often also profits from an administrative fee, which can exist under all kinds of names: as “rate-lock fee” or an “origination fee” and so on. Morty’s fee is equivalent to 1.5% of the loan amount — and it’s paid by the lender.

 

As Rothblatt put it, that jargon makes it impossible for borrowers to do an “apples-to-apples comparison.” Phrases like “rate-lock fee,” to many borrowers, are meaningless.

“It’s a zero-sum game — the lender’s going to make their money, it’s just a matter of what they call it and where it is,” he said. “It’s completely opaque to the borrower, and the only thing that they understand is how it’s being described to them in a very salesman-like way.”

‘Seriously?’

Faux had left Washington and was working for a lender in Connecticut when he connected with Rothblatt, who convinced him to try something new. Shortly after, Apsel joined the effort — and, shortly after that, they were selected to participate in the Techstars venture-capital incubator funded by Barclays. Morty has raised $3 million from investors including Techstars, MetaProp, SV Angel and others.

Jenny Fielding, the Techstars manager who recruited the trio, told MarketWatch that it was the founders, even more than their product, that made Morty compelling. “I thought the product was interesting — they’re doing something that hasn’t been done before — but the most exciting thing was the three of them. Brian with his incredible background in D.C., and Nora and Adam being stellar developers. The support and respect they have for each other was unprecedented.”

That’s not to say Fielding isn’t focused on the scale of the opportunity in Morty’s business plan, which was reinforced when she discovered her bank was of no use lining up financing when she was buying a co-op in New York. “I have perfect credit, I make a really good income, I literally have been a private client for 30 years, and they still couldn’t help me with a mortgage. I just thought, seriously? This is so broken.”

Fielding was stuck going to a broker. As she put it, he “was nice, but I had no idea what was going on behind the scenes, no idea who he was making deals with.”

‘What do people really want?’

The ranks of mortgage brokers thinned considerably after the financial crisis set of 2008, for which they shouldered a good bit of blame. Brokers originated fewer than 10% of all mortgages in the fourth quarter of last year, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, down from about 30% in the years leading up to the crisis.

Still, other players in the lending space behave a lot like brokers do, steering borrowers to a particular lender or type of product.

Fred Kreger, who heads the National Association of Mortgage Brokers’ board of directors, said he has watched the rise of technology-first companies like Morty with some skepticism.

“What do people really want? If they’re going to be investing the largest amount of money in their life, they want a person behind it,” he said in an interview. “The danger is financial services being commoditized. The consumer only knows what they know. They don’t know every product out there. If they do, great. Go online.”

It may come as a bit of a surprise that the three millennials who’ve never owned homes and want to bring lending into the digital age have thrown themselves into the intricacies of personal-finance counseling that go along with mortgage shopping.

Apsel ticked off a laundry list of borrower considerations: How big should a down payment be? Should closing costs be rolled into the mortgage? Should borrowers necessarily buy homes that are as expensive as the amount they’re approved for?

As Rothblatt put it, “We only reserve the human component to the meaningful part, which is the hand holding and the advice and the expertise in the products. We want to build an education into the product as well, but we think there will always be a role for the human adviser and the expertise.”

A ‘scary’ transaction

But most participants in the mortgage industry agree it’s more than prime for disruption. “It’s pretty clear there’s a need to do something about the fact that no one shops for mortgages,” said Ellen Seidman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s housing finance policy center.

“This is an incredibly difficult, scary, emotional, transaction. You only do it a few times in your life. There’s an enormous trust factor. You want to work with someone you can trust. One of the things that makes a good salesperson is being able to gain trust. Some earn it, some don’t.”

It can be hard to pre-shop for mortgages before going out on the market looking for property, in part because the information can change, and in part because pulling credit scores too many times can be a red flag for lenders. But by the time most buyers have found a property to bid on, they’re too frazzled to start shopping for a loan.

Dave Stevens, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association, the influential lobbyist for lenders, hired Faux for one of his first jobs in the mortgage business — as a summer intern at Freddie Mac FMCC, +1.56% — and then kept on hiring him, right up to a top-level role at FHA .

“I never count Brian out. I always assume he’s going to be successful,” Stevens told MarketWatch. “He knows that fintech is clearly a much larger part of the mortgage finance system, and millennials are far more likely to shop online than with some mortgage guy in a suit.”

Still, Stevens said there can be inertia rooted in the layers of bureaucracy that the residential real-estate industry has set up.

“I still believe most real-estate agents are going to recommend their person unless the buyer comes in with a predetermined selection and you don’t want to upset the apple cart. The secret sauce is in the generational shift with millennials. Are they going to keep using the traditional methods that we’ve been using all our lives or is there going to be a break?”

The trend seems clear, Stevens said. “All markets shift, and this is a pretty archaic market. The vast majority of financial products emerge into online.”

Going beyond early adopters

Seidman sees parallels, she said, between the mortgage-brokerage model and the current tussle over the fiduciary rule that the Obama administration tried to enact to govern investment advisers. Mortgages are complicated not just because they’re such enormous transactions that happen so infrequently, she said, but because there are huge numbers of very personal variables, from credit-scoring models to the size of the down payment. A technology-based model like Morty “could be really useful” in bringing some order to that marketplace, Seidman said.

She sees another possible application of Morty’s technology, as well, she said. So far, the company has been content to operate under the radar as the founders finalize the website and the loan process. Most borrowers have found Morty by online word of mouth.

Almost by definition, the high-tech early adopters who’ve used Morty are more affluent than average. As Faux put it, “Lenders love us. We are essentially delivering highly qualified, high-quality gift-wrapped loans to them.”

But that pool of customers isn’t unlimited — and a lower-cost service provider like Morty will need to make revenue in volume, Seidman suggested. It’s also questionable how disruptive Morty can be if it continues to serve only borrowers privileged enough to seek out the best deals and make sense of complex financial information.

Her idea: to pair a tool like Morty with the thousands of housing counseling agencies that work with first-time and other marginalized borrowers around the country. “A mission-oriented trusted intermediary on the customers’ side making use of a complex product,” Seidman said. “There are real opportunities there.”

For now, Faux isn’t worried about scale. Morty is building the model, and the customers will come, he said. Neither is he, or his fellow founders, worried about a newer startup catching Morty from behind.

“The more, the merrier. If we can make the process better for consumers throughout the country and raise awareness, great,” Apsel said. “There can be a lot of winners in this industry.”

Faux put it differently: “I wish them luck going through the state licensing process.”

As the mortgage industry veteran on the leadership team, it falls to him to study — and sit — for licensing exams in each state, a tedious process that’s accompanied by legal paperwork and more.

Morty launches this week after an initial pilot phase. Faux said that no other originator has been able to beat Morty’s rate offerings, and that no customer has walked away from a Morty application after starting it.

Faux also has an olive branch for the “mortgage guys” he wants to put out of business, especially from the perspective of the post-financial-crisis lending landscape.

“Do I think they’re overcharging and getting rich? No, but they’re inadvertently doing so by not modernizing and realizing that there are digital automated processes that can not only lower costs, but make a better mortgage overall.This is a better way to do it, top to bottom.”

source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-online-startup-wants-to-put-the-mortgage-guy-in-a-suit-out-of-business-2017-05-04

Web Statistics