All posts by synergy

Processing Mortgage Payments – BEWARE

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an order against ACI Worldwide and one of its subsidiaries, ACI Payments, for improperly initiating approximately $2.3 billion in unlawful mortgage payments transactions. ACI’s data handling practices negatively impacted nearly 500,000 homeowners with mortgages serviced by Mr. Cooper (formerly known as Nationstar). By unlawfully processing erroneous and unauthorized transactions, ACI opened homeowners to overdraft and insufficient funds fees from their financial institutions. Today’s order requires ACI, among other things, to pay a $25 million civil money penalty.

“The CFPB’s investigation found that ACI perpetrated the 2021 Mr. Cooper mortgage fiasco that impacted homeowners across the country,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “While borrower accounts have now been fixed, we are penalizing ACI for its unlawful actions that created headaches for hundreds of thousands of borrowers.”

ACI (NASDAQ:ACIW) is a publicly traded firm headquartered in Elkhorn, Nebraska. The company offers payment processing services across a wide range of industries including utilities, student loan servicing, healthcare, education, insurance, telecommunications, and mortgage servicing. ACI counts more than 6,000 firms as customers, and the company claims to process more than 225 billion consumer transactions annually. The company processes mortgage payments through the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network. For 2022, ACI reported revenue of $1.422 billion and net income of $142 million.

Mr. Cooper was one of ACI’s largest mortgage servicing customers until at least 2021. Mr. Cooper services the mortgages of more than four million borrowers and collects their monthly mortgage payments. Many homeowners with mortgages serviced through Mr. Cooper chose to schedule their monthly mortgage payments using ACI’s Speedpay product, which allowed the company to automatically transfer homeowners’ authorized mortgage payments from their personal bank accounts to Mr. Cooper.

On Saturday, April 24, 2021, impacted account holders began noticing inaccuracies in their account balances. Immediately, people began experiencing negative financial consequences. At one bank, for example, more than 60,000 accounts experienced more than $330 million in combined unlawful debits by that morning. Among these account holders, approximately 7,300 had their available balances reduced by more than $10,000—overnight.

The CFPB found that ACI’s actions violated federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing rule, Regulation E. Specifically, the company harmed homeowners by:

Illegally initiating withdrawals from borrower bank accounts: ACI initiated approximately 1.4 million ACH withdrawals on behalf of Mr. Cooper from homeowners’ accounts on April 23, 2021, without a valid written authorization. This included initiating electronic fund transfers on days when they were not scheduled and initiating multiple transfers from the same accounts on the same day.

Improperly handling sensitive consumer data: As one of the largest global providers of payment services, ACI handles sensitive financial data of millions of homeowners and other consumers. The unlawful transactions, and the subsequent harm they caused, occurred as a direct result of the company’s inappropriate use of consumer data in its testing process. Specifically, the company failed to establish and enforce reasonable information security practices that would have prevented files created for testing purposes from ever being able to enter the ACH network.

This is the CFPB’s first action addressing unlawful information handling practices in processing mortgage payments. Last year, the CFPB issued an enforcement circular describing how shoddy data handling practices can constitute violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

Enforcement Action

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against companies that violate federal consumer financial protection laws, including engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB also has authority to enforce the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing rule, Regulation E.

On Friday, April 23, 2021, ACI conducted tests of its electronic payments platform. But instead of using deidentified or dummy data in its tests, ACI used actual consumer data it had received from Mr. Cooper, which included names, bank account numbers, bank routing numbers, and amounts to be debited or credited. During its performance testing, ACI improperly sent several large files filled with Mr. Cooper’s customer data into the ACH network, unlawfully initiating approximately $2.3 billion in electronic mortgage payment transactions from homeowners’ accounts. None of the nearly 500,000 impacted borrowers anticipated, authorized, or were aware of these transactions until after they had been processed by their respective banks.

The order requires ACI to:

Stop its unlawful practices: ACI must adopt and enforce reasonable information security practices, and is prohibited from processing payments without obtaining proper authorization. It is also prohibited from using sensitive consumer financial information for software development or testing purposes without documenting a compelling business reason and obtaining consumer consent.

Pay $25 million in penalties: ACI is required to pay a $25 million penalty to the CFPB, which will be deposited into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Read today’s order.

Consumers can submit complaints about mortgage products and other financial products and services by visiting the CFPB’s website or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).

Employees who believe their companies have violated federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing rule, Regulation E, are encouraged to send information about what they know to whistleblower@cfpb.gov. To learn more about reporting potential industry misconduct, visit the CFPB’s website.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit www.consumerfinance.gov.

Source: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-aci-worldwide-illegally-processing-2-3-billion-mortgage-payments-homeowners-did-not-authorize/

Current Status of Mortgage Rate Buydowns

Summary

The housing boom has lasted longer than housing bears have expected, with shares of homebuilders seeing significant gains.

The iShares Home Construction ETF is up 33% for the year and SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF has a 27% YTD return.

Why won’t the housing market turn when every economic indicator says it should? I’d argue that new home sales have held up largely because of homebuilders offering buyers teaser rates.

Homebuilders are using short-term mortgage buydowns to attract buyers, but this could lead to chaos as payments automatically reset to higher amounts. This is particularly risky for jumbo mortgages.

I estimate that 600,000 to 700,000 households could face rate resets in the next year, which could quietly put pressure on the economy and housing market.

Recent data shows what was a surprisingly strong spring selling season for homebuilders and an existing home sales market that has rebounded in price, even amidst plunging volumes. For shares of homebuilders, this means that the pandemic boom in new construction has carried on longer than most analysts thought it would. The iShares Home Construction ETF (BATS:ITB) is up roughly 33% for the year, and the SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF (NYSEARCA:XHB) also clocks in at a 27% YTD return. Over the full business cycle, however, publicly traded homebuilders are lousy businesses. Homebuilders are highly leveraged, highly cyclical businesses. Historically, they’ve had poor returns on capital compared with the market at large and tend to go bust during recessions– a fact that is somewhat hidden by survivorship bias when looking at historical returns.

More recently in 2022, this led to the question of whether homebuilders trading for 5x peak earnings or so were good value investments or value traps. I’ve repeatedly taken the position that they’re value traps, but now here we are with homebuilder stocks having rocketed back to all-time highs since the October lows, along with many of the most speculative corners of the market.

The one factor that I massively underestimated was the prevalence of short-term mortgage rate buydowns provided by homebuilders. How these typically work is that builders will buy down borrowers’ mortgage rates for 1-3 years, at which point the mortgage resets to a higher monthly payment. Common forms include 3-2-1 (i.e. 3% reduction in interest in year 1, 2% in year 2, and 1% in year 3), and 2-1.

Research shows that around 75% of builders are using them, with the greatest concentrations of use in Texas and the Southwest. On a $500,000 loan with a 2-1 and prevailing mortgage rates at 7%, the monthly payment would be $2,684 in year 1, $2,997 in year 2, and $3,326 in year 3. By and large, this allowed builders to sell homes that would have piled up by offering teaser payments that reset to levels that are technically legal, but often at rather uncomfortable debt-to-income ratios when combined with property tax increases and skyrocketing utility bills. Throw in some cheap construction and 110-degree summer temperatures, and you have a recipe for potential regret, especially for out-of-state buyers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac restrict buydowns that exceed these thresholds (because of the potential for fraud and abuse), but highly publicized troubles at lenders like First Republic (OTCPK:FRCB) show that the jumbo market has seen some more exotic underwriting. The unspoken implication here is that lenders, real estate agents, and builders are selling these to buyers with the implicit or explicit suggestion that they should refinance down the road and lower their payments, (a.k.a. the infamous “date the rate, marry the house” sales pitch). That works if interest rates go down, but interest rates have actually gone up and the Treasury now has a boatload of deficit-financed debt to sell, which threatens to push mortgage rates above 8% by late summer. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at least force buyers to qualify for the payments after they reset, but it’s not clear whether the jumbo market has the same level of protection.

Mortgage buydowns may be innovative for builders, but they’re not newly invented. One of the untold stories of the 2008 financial crisis was the role that homebuilder rate incentives had in fueling the crisis. Adjustable rate mortgages get all the attention for massive balloon payments, but the story in jumbo mortgages was actually quite similar. Many, many buyers who bought in 2005 and 2006 had their mortgages reset in 2008 and 2009 after their rate buydowns expired, and their assumptions about mortgage rates turned out to be wildly wrong. In fact, jumbo mortgage rates hit nearly 8% in early 2009. That’s because jumbo mortgages are heavily dependent on credit, which rapidly tightened then starting in 2007 and also is tightening now. Only after the economy recovered did mortgages start to get cheaper again.

This means that taking out a jumbo mortgage because you think you can refinance it later is riskier than you think! It’s smart for homebuilders to offer these and it extended the business cycle long enough for investors to make profits. However, these rate resets are potentially disastrous for buyers making huge economic bets with scarce information about whether they’ll truly be able to refinance for cheaper rates.

Jumbo Mortgage Rates- 2007-2013

Different data sources on mortgages will generally show slightly different numbers, the main reason being that many mortgage rate surveys don’t count points charged to acquire the loan. But jumbo mortgage rates rose in the early stages of the 2000 recession. And throughout the 2008 recession, we see here that jumbo mortgages actually rose significantly.

So how many people have these rate buydowns? A minority of builders do buy the rate down for the whole 30-year term and a few buyers pay cash, so I think a fair estimate is that roughly 50% of new home buyers have rate buydowns that are 3-2-1 or faster. Roughly 600,000 new homes were sold in 2022, and this year is tracking for about 800,000. Divide by two, and we can ballpark that maybe 600,000 to 700,000 households have rate reset balloon payments coming due over the next couple of years. It may not sound like much, but that’s a figure roughly equal to all of the homes in the US currently listed for sale. Since housing supply for sale is low compared to the size of the overall housing stock, it could change the supply/demand dynamics considerably. My guess is that this will start to quietly become a problem for new homeowners, as we’re just now starting to see rates reset from last summer when mortgage rates first hit 6%.

For jumbo buyers, these can amount to payment hikes of $1,000 to $2,000 per month. Jumbo buyers aren’t likely to get much sympathy from the Fed or Treasury either, as encouraging marginal holders to sell is part of the process of bringing supply and demand back into balance. The strategy of taking out a mortgage and trying to refinance is somewhat better for those buying lower-priced homes with conventional mortgages. At lower mortgage amounts, the government is more likely to intervene to help you if things go south. Still, I wouldn’t expect a whole lot of help without unemployment rising sharply, in which case many buyers will need to sell anyway, driving down prices. Now add student loans restarting, with 40 million borrowers affected. Interesting times indeed.

The Cure For High Prices Is High Prices

While homebuilders have done well, the looming oversupply in rental housing and falling margins for homebuilders will continue to accelerate. If current trends hold, new homes could soon be cheaper than existing homes, which almost never happens. Builders are aggressively discounting homes, including using rate buydowns, and it’s allowing them to offload houses.

But as a recent report from Reventure Consulting shows, much of this new construction is far out from existing cities, which may help explain why there has been relatively little pressure on the existing home sales market so far. For example, this is a map of new construction in North Texas, where much of the new construction is an hour or longer drive to the city itself. In the 2008 real estate bubble, these kinds of homes were the hardest hit, particularly in areas like Arizona, Las Vegas, and the Inland Empire of California.

But with the median prices of new homes falling from $497,000 at the pandemic peak to $416,000, it’s only a matter of time before buyers start responding in earnest to the market signal they’re being given. As prices for new construction continue to fall, it’s going to pressure the existing home sales market because the two are nearly perfect substitutes. And ask yourself, with new home prices already falling to near the levels of existing homes, who’s going to buy the next 1.7 million units under construction, and at mortgage rates of 7% or more?

Homebuilders clearly had some hefty profit margins to work with in 2022 when they began discounting inventory. But the next 1.7 million houses under construction will be a much tougher proposition to sell or rent. Rents are now falling, interest rates continue rising, and there’s little long-term demographic demand for housing in excess of what’s already been pulled forward. While housing market bears may have been early in calling a downturn, underlying demographic trends likely mean they won’t be wrong about the ultimate destination.

With these in mind, I’m highly skeptical of stocks like Lennar (LEN) now trading for 10.5x earnings, D.R. Horton (DHI) trading for 11.5x earnings, and even from Toll Brothers (TOL) trading for 7.8x. If builders want to buy down mortgages for the full 30-year term for borrowers it’s fine, but doing so affects margins similarly to how price cuts would. When most of the industry is offering short-term teaser rates to new home buyers, the very clear risk is that the houses they sell come back onto the market when the mortgages reset, just like they did in the 2000s, but on a smaller scale. This, combined with the massive wave of construction hitting the market means homebuilder profit margins likely won’t stop falling when they hit 0%.

Key Takeaways

The housing market has been surprisingly strong in 2023, despite the ratio of a typical mortgage payment to a typical wage reaching a level surpassing the 2000s housing bubble.

One reason that the housing market hasn’t turned down as sharply as feared may be due to widespread mortgage rate buydowns by builders.

Many buyers are rolling the dice and betting that they can refinance in a couple of years for a lower interest rate before their payments reset, but jumbo mortgage rates in particular tend to rise, not fall during a recession.

Will home buyers who bought in 2022 with mortgage buydowns sell en masse when their payments reset this year and next? We’ll see.

It remains to be seen whether the economy will achieve a soft landing, but the widespread existence and adoption of mortgage rate buydowns are likely to exacerbate the swings of the business cycle. Count this as one more data point suggesting a soft landing is less likely than pundits think.

Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

Source : https://seekingalpha.com/article/4617622-us-homebuilder-mortgage-rate-buydowns-starting-to-expire

The Latest AVM QC Requirements for Lenders

With the greater adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and other automated systems in the financial services industry, the federal financial regulators have shown increased interest in how financial institutions use these technologies. These systems can improve operational efficiency and customer service. However, the regulators have expressed concern that, without appropriate care, the deployment of these technologies can lead financial institutions to take on unnecessary risks that could result in the organization operating out of compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to those related to safety and soundness and discrimination.

On June 21, 2023, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively, the Agencies) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on a proposed rule governing the use of AI and other algorithmic systems in appraising home values (proposed rule). The proposed rule implements the quality-control standards mandated by Section 1125 of the Dodd-Frank Act for the use of automated valuation models (AVMs) by mortgage originators and secondary market issuers to value single-family and one-to-four-unit multifamily homes. While four of the five proposed quality-control standards are based on those specified in the Dodd-Frank Act and are consistent with standards that are currently set forth in regulations and guidance for appraisals, the Agencies are proposing a fifth standard that AVMs comply with applicable discrimination laws.

This Advisory provides an overview of the proposed rule and includes key takeaways and other considerations for institutions that would be covered by the proposed rule.

What institutions would be covered by the proposed rule?

The proposed rule would apply generally to mortgage originators and secondary market participants and specifically to financial institutions; subsidiaries owned and controlled by a financial institution and regulated by a federal financial institution regulatory agency; credit union service organizations; and any party that creates, structures, or organizes a mortgage-backed securities transaction (Covered Institutions). Third-party service providers of banking organizations that provide related services may also be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed rule, based on the Bank Service Company Act and the newly released Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Risk Management. Similar to the Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Risk Management, the proposed rule is principle-based and does not prescribe particular quality-control standards. Unlike the guidance, however, the proposed rule would be binding and noncompliance could result in formal and informal enforcement actions against a Covered Institution for failure to have what the Agencies deem to be appropriate policies, procedures, and practices—even if there are no alleged violations of other laws or regulations. For more information about the Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Risk Management, check out our prior Advisory.

What transactions would be covered by the proposed rule?

The proposed rule would apply to transactions (Covered Transactions) that use AVMs to value collateral in connection with making a credit decision or covered securitization determination regarding a mortgage or mortgage-backed security. The term “automated valuation model” would be defined as any computerized model used by mortgage originators and secondary market issuers to determine the value of a consumer’s principal dwelling collateralizing a mortgage, even if the mortgage is primarily for business, commercial, agricultural, or organizational purposes. The proposed rule includes definitions for several other key terms, including but not limited to “control systems,” “covered securitization determination,” “mortgage originator,” and “secondary market issuer.”

What transactions would be exempt from the proposed rule?

The proposed rule distinguishes between using AVMs to determine the value of collateral securing a mortgage and using AVMs to monitor, verify, or validate a previous determination of value. Thus, the proposed rule expressly excludes the use of AVMs in monitoring the quality or performance of mortgages, reviewing already completed determinations of the value of collateral, or developing an appraisal. As such, the proposed rule would not apply to the use of AVMs in the (i) monitoring of the quality or performance of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities; (ii) reviews of the quality of already completed determinations of the value of collateral; or (iii) the development of an appraisal by a certified or licensed appraiser.

What are the proposed requirements?

Covered Institutions would need to have policies, practices, procedures, and control systems to ensure that AVMs used in the Covered Transactions adhere to quality-control standards to (1) ensure high-level confidence in estimates; (2) protect against manipulation of data; (3) seek to avoid conflicts of interest; (4) require random sample testing and reviews; and (5) comply with applicable nondiscrimination laws.

The Agencies propose to allow each Covered Institution flexibility to create its own quality-control standards that are appropriate for its size and the risk and complexity of its Covered Transactions. Accordingly, the proposed rule does not include prescriptive requirements for quality-control standards. Instead, the Agencies noted that the Covered Institutions may look to the existing guidance for assistance with compliance. The existing guidance relating to the use of AVMs includes Appendix B to the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines and Guidance on Model Risk Management. For institutions that use third-party service providers for AVMs and AVM services, the Agencies reminded such institutions that they remain responsible for ensuring that third parties, in performing their activities, comply with applicable laws and regulations, including the safety and soundness requirements.

The fifth factor—compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws—is not specified in Section 1125 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1125 expressly provides the Agencies with the authority to account for any other factor that the agencies determine to be appropriate. The Agencies propose to use this discretion to add the fifth factor because of their concerns that AVMs may produce discriminatory valuations due to the data used or a model’s development, design, implementation, or use. For instance, models trained on data reflecting systemic inaccuracies and historical patterns of discrimination may tend to yield discriminatory results. Notably, the Agencies propose to include the fifth factor despite their recognition that compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws may be indirectly reflected in three of the first four quality control factors. The Agencies provided in the NPRM that including the fifth factor would create an independent requirement that specifically addresses nondiscrimination.

The Agencies’ proposal fits with the Biden Administration’s increased focus on the connection between nondiscrimination laws and AVMs. Last year, the administration established an Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE) to examine the various forms of bias in residential property valuation practices and identify ways the government and industry stakeholders can address such bias.1 As highlighted by PAVE, recent studies of home appraisals and the market value gap between majority-Black and majority-White neighborhoods indicate there may be appraisal bias in the U.S. housing market.2 There have been lawsuits against mortgage lenders alleging violations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Fair Housing Act (FHA), and other federal and state civil rights laws related to alleged discriminatory appraisals. The CFPB and DOJ have submitted a Statement of Interest in at least one case analyzing the legal questions related to a mortgage lender’s obligations under ECOA and FHA and specifically the consequences of relying on discriminatory appraisals.

The Agencies’ choice to make compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws an express factor also follows the Biden Administration’s approach to AI regulation, as reflected in its Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, which includes algorithmic discrimination protections. For more information about Biden’s Blueprint, check out our prior Advisory.

Other Considerations for Covered Institutions

Many financial institutions and their third-party service providers rely on AVMs for efficiency and cost savings, and based on such, the Agencies are concerned that the use of AVMs may have unintended effects that would result in the Covered Institution operating in an unsafe or unsound manner or violating consumer financial protection laws. Additionally, in the NPRM, the Agencies are reminding Covered Institutions that use of third parties does not diminish their responsibility to oversee the activities of the third parties for compliance with applicable laws in the same manner as if they were conducted by the institution itself.

The Agencies are soliciting feedback on dozens of aspects of their proposed rule. Particularly important questions include the following:

  1. How should the Agencies define key terms such as “mortgage originator,” “consumer,” and “credit decision”?
  2. What, if any, additional clarifications would be helpful for situations where an AVM would or would not be covered by the proposed rule?
  3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of specifying a fifth quality-control factor on nondiscrimination? What, if any, alternative approaches should the Agencies consider?
  4. How might a rule covering only AVM usage by mortgage originators and secondary-market issuers disadvantage those entities vis-à-vis their competitors?
  5. To what extent do secondary-market issuers use AVMs to determine collateral value in securitizations?
  6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of exempting federally backed securitizations from the AVM quality-control standards?
  7. Are lenders’ existing compliance management systems and fair lending monitoring programs able to assess whether a covered AVM, including the AVM’s underlying artificial intelligence or machine learning, applies different standards or produces disparate valuations on a prohibited basis? If not, what additional guidance or resources would be useful or necessary for compliance?

The Agencies have also issued proposed Interagency Guidance on Reconsiderations of Value of Residential Real Estate Valuations. This proposal describes the risks of deficient residential real estate collateral valuations that remain uncorrected, including those that may involve discrimination, and provides guidance on how financial institutions can create or enhance policies, procedures, control systems, and complaint-resolution processes to address those risks.

Companies and trade associations concerned that the rulemaking’s outcome might challenge their (or their members’) business models should consider submitting comments, which are due by August 21, 2023.

Source: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/charges-mortgages-indemnities/1334400/proposed-regulation-for-quality-control-standards-in-the-use-of-automated-valuation-models-by-mortgage-lenders-targets-compliance-with-discrimination-laws-as-well-as-safety-and-soundness

Shared Appreciation Mortgage Loans Update

The Maryland governor recently signed HB 1150 (the “Act”), which subjects certain shared appreciation agreements (SAAs) to the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law. Under the Act, the term “loan” now “includes an advance made in accordance with the terms of a shared appreciation agreement.” An SAA is defined by the Act to mean “a writing evidencing a transaction or any option, future, or any other derivative between a person and a consumer where the consumer receives money or any other item of value in exchange for an interest or future interest in a dwelling or residential real estate, or a future obligation to repay a sum on the occurrence of [certain] events,” such as an ownership transfer, a repayment maturity date, a consumer’s death, or other events. The Act specifies that a loan is subject to the state’s mortgage lender law if the loan is an SAA and “allows a borrower to repay advances and have any repaid amounts subsequently readvanced to the borrower.”

Interim guidance released by the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation further clarifies that SAAs are mortgage loans, and that those who offer SAAs to consumers in the state are required to obtain a Maryland mortgage lender licensing unless exempt. Under the Act, the commissioner will issue regulations addressing enforcement and compliance, including SAA disclosure requirements. The Act takes effect July 1. However, for SAA applications taken on or after July 1 (and until regulations are promulgated and effective), the commissioner will not cite a licensee for disclosure requirement violations, provided the licensee makes a good faith effort to give the applicant specified information within ten days of receiving an application. Licensees will be required to provide the information again at least 72 hours before settlement if the actual terms of the SAA differ from those provided in the initial disclosure.

Current State of the Housing Market

The newest Mortgage Monitor report from Black Knight portrays a residential real estate market that’s stuck in a vicious circle as declining credit availability adds to the affordability crisis exacerbated by high-interest rates and steep home prices.

As Andy Walden, Black Knight’s vice president of enterprise research, succinctly puts it, “in a sense, the gridlocked housing market has been feeding on itself.”

“While elevated interest rates continue to weigh on both affordability and demand, they’re simultaneously constricting supply as well as would-be sellers who locked in ultra-low rates early in the pandemic and continue to sit on the sidelines,” Walden added. “The combination of lower supply and demand in April led to both slowing sales and firming prices. In fact, while home sales dipped, April marked the fourth consecutive month of home price gains, which are now almost universally rising across the country again on a seasonally adjusted basis.”

Per Black Knight’s numbers, only one market is still seeing meaningful price declines: Austin, which is also the only market where inventory has eclipsed pre-pandemic levels.

“In today’s market, interest rates are acting as a double-edged sword, reducing or increasing both demand and supply as they rise and fall, making it challenging to find a rate-driven path to easing affordability and home prices,” Walden noted.

Such onerous fundamentals are holding back the normally fervent spring housing market, compounded by a new wrench in the works in the form of tightening credit. According to Optimal Blue rate lock data from Black Knight, average credit scores and downpayments are both on the uptick.

Additionally, Black Knight figures show April home purchase credit scores at their highest level since at least 2000, when the company first began tracking the metric. Such credit rigidity has only encouraged the ongoing slowdown in purchase locks, which fell 11% from the week ending March 25 to the week ending May 20 — a statistic that should be trending the opposite way as the spring market heats up.

Instead, after coming within 15% of pre-pandemic purchase-lock levels earlier in the year, locks have now slid back to more than 30% below this threshold.

“Demand is obviously suffering,” Walden said, “and the fact that this spring’s strengthening home prices have erased more than 60% of the ‘correction’ seen late last year isn’t likely to help much on that front.”

Source:https://www.scotsmanguide.com/news/black-knight-housing-market-gridlocked-and-theres-a-new-hindrance

AI and Automated Mortgage Loan Decisions – An Update

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Four federal agencies jointly pledged today to uphold America’s commitment to the core principles of fairness, equality, and justice as emerging automated systems, including those sometimes marketed as “artificial intelligence” or “AI,” have become increasingly common in our daily lives – impacting civil rights, fair competition, consumer protection, and equal opportunity.

The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a  joint statement outlining a commitment to enforce their respective laws and regulations.

All four agencies have previously expressed concerns about potentially harmful uses of automated systems and resolved to vigorously enforce their collective authorities and to monitor the development and use of automated systems.

“Technology marketed as AI has spread to every corner of the economy, and regulators need to stay ahead of its growth to prevent discriminatory outcomes that threaten families’ financial stability,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Today’s joint statement makes it clear that the CFPB will work with its partner enforcement agencies to root out discrimination caused by any tool or system that enables unlawful decision making.”

“We have come together to make clear that the use of advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence, must be consistent with federal laws,” said Charlotte A. Burrows, Chair of the EEOC. “America’s workplace civil rights laws reflect our most cherished values of justice, fairness and opportunity, and the EEOC has a solemn responsibility to vigorously enforce them in this new context. We will continue to raise awareness on this topic; to help educate employers, vendors, and workers; and where necessary, to use our enforcement authorities to ensure AI does not become a high-tech pathway to discrimination.”

“We already see how AI tools can turbocharge fraud and automate discrimination, and we won’t hesitate to use the full scope of our legal authorities to protect Americans from these threats,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Technological advances can deliver critical innovation—but claims of innovation must not be cover for lawbreaking. There is no AI exemption to the laws on the books, and the FTC will vigorously enforce the law to combat unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition.”

“As social media platforms, banks, landlords, employers, and other businesses that choose to rely on artificial intelligence, algorithms and other data tools to automate decision-making and to conduct business, we stand ready to hold accountable those entities that fail to address the discriminatory outcomes that too often result,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This is an all hands on deck moment and the Justice Department will continue to work with our government partners to investigate, challenge, and combat discrimination based on automated systems.”

Today’s joint statement follows a series of CFPB actions to ensure advanced technologies do not violate the rights of consumers. Specifically, the CFPB has taken steps to protect consumers from:

Black box algorithms: In a May 2022, circular the CFPB advised that when the technology used to make credit decisions is too complex, opaque, or new to explain adverse credit decisions, companies cannot claim that same complexity or opaqueness as a defense against violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Algorithmic marketing and advertising: In August 2022, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule stating when digital marketers are involved in the identification or selection of prospective customers or the selection or placement of content to affect consumer behavior, they are typically service providers under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. When their actions, such as using an algorithm to determine who to market products and services to, violate federal consumer financial protection law, they can be held accountable.

Abusive use of AI technology: Earlier this month, the CFPB issued a policy statement to explain abusive conduct. The statement is about unlawful conduct in consumer financial markets generally, but the prohibition would cover abusive uses of AI technologies to, for instance, obscure important features of a product or service or leverage gaps in consumer understanding.

Digital redlining: The CFPB has prioritized digital redlining, including bias in algorithms and technologies marketed as AI. As part of this effort, the CFPB is working with federal partners to protect homebuyers and homeowners from algorithmic bias within home valuations and appraisals through rulemaking.

Repeat offenders’ use of AI technology: The CFPB proposed a registry to detect repeat offenders. The registry would require covered nonbanks to report certain agency and court orders connected to consumer financial products and services. The registry would allow the CFPB to track companies whose repeat offenses involved the use of automated systems.

The CFPB has also launched a way for tech workers to blow the whistle. The CFPB encourages engineers, data scientists and others who have detailed knowledge of the algorithms and technologies used by companies and who know of potential discrimination or other misconduct within the CFPB’s authority to report it. CFPB subject-matter experts review and assess credible tips, and the CFPB’s process ensures that all credible tips receive appropriate analysis and investigation.

The CFPB will continue to monitor the development and use of automated systems, including AI-marketed technology, and work closely with the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, FTC, and EEOC to enforce federal consumer financial protection laws and to protect the rights of American consumers, regardless of whether legal violations occur through traditional means or advanced technologies.

The CFPB will also release a white paper this spring discussing the current chatbot market and the technology’s limitations, its integration by financial institutions, and the ways the CFPB is already seeing chatbots interfere with consumers’ ability to interact with financial institutions.

Read today’s Joint Statement on Enforcement Efforts Against Discrimination and Bias in Automated Systems. 

Read Director Chopra’s Prepared Remarks on the Interagency Enforcement Policy Statement on “Artificial Intelligence.”

Consumers can submit complaints about other financial products and services, by visiting the CFPB’s website or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).

Employees who believe their company has violated federal consumer financial laws, including violations involving advanced technologies, are encouraged to send information about what they know to whistleblower@cfpb.gov. To learn more about reporting potential industry misconduct, visit the CFPB’s website.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a 21st-century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit www.consumerfinance.gov.

Source: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-federal-partners-confirm-automated-systems-advanced-technology-not-an-excuse-for-lawbreaking-behavior/

CFPB Enforcement Actions – Learn from Other’s Mistakes

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) permanently banned RMK Financial Corporation, which does business as Majestic Home Loans, from the mortgage lending industry by prohibiting RMK from engaging in any mortgage lending activities or receiving remuneration from mortgage lending. In 2015, the CFPB issued an agency order against RMK for, among other things, sending advertisements to military families that led the recipients to believe the company was affiliated with the United States government. Despite the 2015 order’s prohibition on these and other actions, the company engaged in a series of repeat offenses, including disseminating millions of mortgage advertisements to military families that deceptively used fake U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seals, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) logo, and other language or design elements to falsely imply that RMK was affiliated with the government. In addition to the ban, RMK will also pay a $1 million penalty that will be deposited into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

“Even after the 2015 law enforcement order, RMK continued to lie to military families by falsely implying government endorsement of its home loans,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Our action reflects our commitment to weed out repeat offenders, and we are shutting down this outfit for good.”

RMK is a privately held corporation with its principal place of business in Ontario, California. RMK is a nonbank that is licensed as a mortgage broker or lender in at least 30 states and Puerto Rico. RMK originates consumer mortgages, including mortgages guaranteed by the VA and mortgages insured by the FHA. However, RMK is affiliated with neither government agency.

In 2015, the CFPB took action against RMK to end its use of deceptive mortgage advertising practices, including advertisements that led potential homebuyers to believe that the company was affiliated with the VA or FHA. RMK sent these deceptive advertisements to tens of thousands of military families as well as to other holders of VA-guaranteed mortgages. In addition to paying a fine, RMK was required to end its illegal and deceptive practices.

The CFPB has previously warned about VA home loan scams. Many servicemembers, veterans, and military spouses receive fraudulent calls and mailers from companies claiming to be affiliated with the government, the VA, or their home loan servicer.

In the case of RMK, the CFPB found that the company disseminated millions of mortgage advertisements to military families that made deceptive representations or contained inadequate or impermissible disclosures in violation of the 2015 order, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Mortgage Acts and Practices Advertising Rule, and the Truth in Lending Act. Specifically, the company harmed military families and other consumers by sending millions of advertisements for mortgages that:

Tricked military families about the government’s role in sending the advertisements or providing the loans: RMK sent advertisements that misrepresented that RMK was, or was affiliated with, the VA or the FHA, that the VA or FHA sent the notices, or that the advertised loans were provided by the VA or FHA. Military families or others who view such advertisements may decide to purchase the advertised mortgage based on the trust they have in the government agencies.

Deceived borrowers about interest rates and key terms: RMK’s advertisements illegally disclosed a simple annual interest rate more conspicuously than the annual percentage rate, illegally advertised unavailable credit terms, and used the name of the homeowner’s current lender in a misleading way. Consumers who view such advertisements may be misled about the terms being offered or mistakenly believe their current lender is sending the advertisement.

Falsely misrepresented loan requirements and lied about projected savings from refinancing: RMK’s advertisements misrepresented that the benefits available to those who qualified for VA or FHA loans were time limited. Additionally, RMK’s advertisements misrepresented that military families could obtain VA cash-out refinancing loans without an appraisal and without incurring the cost of an appraisal, that an appraisal was not a condition of qualifying for VA cash-out refinancing loans, and that no minimum credit score and no income verification were required to qualify for VA cash-out refinancing loans. Finally, RMK’s advertisements misrepresented the amount of monthly payments, the annual savings under the advertised loans, and the cash available in connection with the advertised loans.

Enforcement Action

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Truth in Lending Act, which is intended to ensure that consumers can compare credit terms more readily and knowledgeably. Today’s order requires RMK to:

Exit the mortgage lending business: RMK is permanently banned from engaging in any mortgage lending activities, including advertising, marketing, promoting, offering, providing, originating, administering, servicing, or selling mortgage loans, or otherwise participating in or receiving remuneration from mortgage lending, or assisting others in doing so.

Pay a $1 million fine: RMK must pay a $1 million penalty to the CFPB, which will be deposited into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Today’s action is one in a series of actions the CFPB is taking to halt repeat offenders, particularly those that violate agency and court orders. The CFPB recently proposed a registry to detect repeat offenders in the financial marketplace. The action also complements broader efforts, including rulemaking by the Federal Trade Commission, to deter government and business impersonator scams.

Read today’s order.

Read I am a servicemember or veteran and I have decided to purchase a home. How do I know if a VA loan is the right fit for me?

Read more about VA loans.

Learn more about mortgage protections for veterans.

Consumers can submit complaints about financial products and services by visiting the CFPB’s website or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).

Employees who believe their companies have violated federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Truth in Lending Act, are encouraged to send information about what they know to whistleblower@cfpb.gov. To learn more about reporting potential industry misconduct, visit the CFPB’s website.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit www.consumerfinance.gov.

Source: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-shuts-down-mortgage-loan-business-of-rmk-financial-for-repeat-offenses-against-military-families/

Why Are Mortgage Zombie Loans of Interest to the CFPB

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) recently issued advisory guidance on the enforcement of time-barred mortgage loans.  A time-barred mortgage loan is one where the statute of limitations has expired.  The statute of limitations for mortgage loans are typically created by state law, and vary by jurisdiction.  In some cases, they create an affirmative defense for the consumer that prohibits a debt collector from suing to collect the debt.  In other cases, judicial foreclosure actions are also subject to a statute of limitations.  The CFPB indicated that its opinion was issued in light of a series of actions by debt collectors attempting to foreclose on “silent second mortgages,” also known as “zombie mortgages,” that consumers thought were satisfied long ago and may now be unenforceable. 

The CFPB attributes this trend to practices that occurred in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, when to make home purchases affordable, some lenders coupled first mortgage loans with second mortgage loans.  These “piggyback” mortgages often involved a primary mortgage for 80% of a property’s value, with a second mortgage for the remaining 20%.  During the financial crisis, struggling borrowers paid their first mortgage loans, but failed to pay their second mortgage loans.  According to the CFPB, many lenders did not pursue collection on the second mortgages during the financial crisis, due to declining home values, which meant that in a foreclosure no sale proceeds would remain after payment of the first mortgage.  Instead, lenders sold their second mortgage loans for a fraction of their value.  The CFPB alleges that, over a decade later, and without any intervening communication to borrowers, debt collectors are now demanding the second mortgage balance, interest, and fees and are threatening foreclosure on borrowers that do not pay.

In the advisory guidance, the CFPB states that it is illegal to sue or threaten to sue to collect on time-barred zombie mortgages.  The CFPB states that debt collectors that nonetheless attempt to do so may be in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and Regulation F, warning that:

The FDCPA and its implementing Regulation F prohibit a debt collector from suing or threatening to sue to collect time-barred debt, and

The prohibition applies even if the debt collector does not know that the debt is time-barred.

Debt collectors should review the applicable statutes of limitations for jurisdictions in which they are collecting and confirm they know the age of their loans to reduce compliance risk.  They should also be mindful that another issue identified by the CFPB was debt collectors’ failure to sufficiently communicate with borrowers.  Debt collectors dealing with older loans where the statute of limitations has not run should consider attempting additional communications with borrowers before initiating foreclosure proceedings, to mitigate borrower surprise and to avoid increased attention from the CFPB.

Source: https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2023/05/11/cfpb-takes-aim-at-sniping-zombie-mortgage-loans/

A Surprising Sign That Home Prices May Finally Take a Plunge This Summer

After a few years of flying high, home prices are finally coming back down to earth with a thud. In fact, the prospect of an outright price drop is looming on the horizon, according to a new Realtor.com report.

In March, real estate listing prices came in nationwide at a median of $424,000, down from June’s all-time record high of $449,000.

And while this March’s prices are 6.3% higher than in March 2022, that price growth is tapering off, marking “the lowest rate of growth since June 2020, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic,” notes Danielle Hale, Realtor.com® chief economist, in her analysis.

A closer look at spring’s softening home prices

Given that home prices have been running hard and high throughout much of the pandemic, why are they showing signs of losing steam right in the buildup to the busy spring homebuying season?

One clear culprit is mortgage rates, which have more than doubled over the past year—from under 3% to well above 6% for a fixed-rate 30-year loan. Played out in monthly mortgage payments, financing 80% of a typical home today costs an average of $611 (or 39.3%) more, compared to just last year.

This has put a serious crimp in what homebuyers can afford—and, in turn, is forcing sellers to lower their expectations and asking prices. As Hale puts it, home sellers have “gradually adjusted to softer market conditions.”

Many sellers budged, albeit grudgingly, disappointed that they missed the market’s peak.

“While it’s technically more of a seller’s market than a buyer’s market, it doesn’t really feel that way to sellers,” says Brian Davis, who teaches real estate investment courses at SparkRental. “Many sellers just aren’t getting what they want for their homes right now.”

Inside the home-seller dilemma

Sellers facing a relatively lackluster spring season have three choices.

“Some will simply remove their listings from the market,” says Davis. And that’s exactly what many are doing. In March, the number of new listings fell by 20.1%, compared to this same month a year earlier.

As for the sellers who remain in the game, there are still two tough choices to make.

“Some will lower their prices to attract offers,” says Davis.

Indeed, 12.6% of March home sellers made price cuts. That’s more than double the number who slashed their asking prices this same month last year (5.8%).

As for the third group, “sellers who can afford to be patient can simply list their home for the price they want and wait,” says Davis. “But they might end up waiting for a long time.”

And the numbers bear this out. In March, real estate listings lingered an average of 54 days on the market, 18 days longer than last year.

“That stagnation indicates to me that home prices have further to dip, at least in some markets,” Davis says, adding that he thinks the prospects look grim, regardless of what the economy does next.

“The only reason the Federal Reserve would lower interest rates this year is if a recession hits, and they need to stimulate economic growth,” he reasons. “That leaves sellers between the rock of high interest rates and the hard place of a recession—both of which historically dampen home prices.”

Source: https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/surprising-sign-home-prices-could-plunge-this-summer/

Which Directions are Home Prices Headed ?

US home prices, according to S&P CoreLogic’s Case-Shiller index, fell for the 7th straight month (-0.42% MoM) leaving the home price index up 2.55% YoY (in January – this data is always very lagged) – the lowest growth since Nov 2019.

“One of the most interesting aspects of January’s report is the continued weakness in home prices on the West Coast, as San Diego and Portland joined San Francisco and Seattle in negative year-over-year territory,” Craig J. Lazzara, managing director at S&P Dow Jones Indices, said in statement.

“It’s therefore unsurprising that the Southeast (+10.2%) continues as the country’s strongest region, while the West (-1.5%) continues as the weakest.” San Francisco and Seattle are down the most from their highs (New York and Miami are down the least). Home prices in Miami and Tampa are still up over 60% since COVID.

We suspect that is what Powell is hoping for, and judging by mortgage rates, prices have a long way to fall.

Source : https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/delay-your-home-purchase-bob-shiller-warns-prices-slide-7th-straight-month

Web Statistics