The Obama Administration has continued its aggressive prosecution of suspect players in the financial meltdown that shaped most of the President’s first term.

Four mortgage insurers, including an AIG subsidiary, have agreed to a $15 million settlement over allegations of improper ‘kickbacks’ paid to lenders for more than a decade.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau made the announcement today.  Its director, Richard Cordray, charged, “We believe these mortgage insurance companies funneled millions of dollars to mortgage lenders for well over a decade.”  For more, see the NYTimesand WSJ.

Also today, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a fraud suit against Golden First Mortgage Corp, alleging the company and its CEO “repeatedly lied” to the government.  The complaint claims that Golden First rushed paperwork through internally, although the company certified (to HUD and the FHA) that proper due diligence had been conducted.  According to the government, Golden First used three employees to process 100-200 loans per month—predictably leading to “extraordinarily high” default rates as high as 60% in 2007.  For more, see Thomson Reuters.

On a related note, district court Judge Victor Marrero (S.D.N.Y.) indicated that he may not accept a “neither admit nor deny” provision in SAC Capital Advisor’s insider trading settlement.  At a hearing last week, he made a point unlikely to encounter much resistance:  “There is something counterintuitive and incongruous in a party agreeing to settle a case for $600 million that might cost $1 million to defend and litigate if it truly did nothing wrong.”  Judge Marrero is not the first to question these clauses – commonly demanded by corporate litigants – but his remarks demonstrate a growing judicial skepticism with the practice.  For more, see Businessweek, Reuters, and The New Yorker.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has announced a new rule (the “Ability-to-Repay rule”) requiring mortgage lenders to ensure that potential borrowers will be able to repay their mortgages.  The CFPB is charged with amending Regulation Z, which carries out the Truth in Lending Act.  The CFPB also implements the ability-to-repay requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”).  Under Dodd-Frank, creditors must make a reasonable and good faith determination that borrowers have a reasonable ability to repay the loan.

The Ability-to-Repay rule is aimed at protecting American consumers.  According to the CFPB Director, the “Ability-to-Repay rule protects borrowers from the kinds of risky lending practices that resulted in so many families losing their homes.”

Under the new rule:

• 1. Lenders are required to obtain and verify financial information from potential borrowers,
• 2. Lenders must evaluate and conclude that potential borrowers have sufficient assets or income to repay the loan, and
• 3. Lenders cannot use lower, introductory “teaser” interest rates (which cause monthly payments to jump to unaffordable levels) to base their evaluation of a potential borrower’s ability to repay the loan.

In assessing whether a borrower will be able to repay their loan, lenders must generally consider the following underwriting factors:  1) current or reasonable expected income or assets, 2) current employment status, 3) the monthly payment, 4) monthly payment on any simultaneous loan, 5) the monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations, 6) current debt obligations, 7) monthly debt-to-income ratio, and 8 ) credit history.

Read the rest of this entry »

The director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may be facing a challenge the constitutionality of his “recess appointment,” following a January 25 ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  In that case, the court held three of President Obama’s appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional.  The party challenging director Richard Cordray’s status would likely argue that the opinion applies to him as well, as he was appointed via the same process.  For more, see Bloomberg.

The Justice Department has sued Anheuser-Busch InBev in Washington D.C. district court, attempting to block the company’s proposed $20.1 billion merger with Modelo.  The head of the DOJ’s antitrust division, William J. Baer, said the deal would reduce competition in the American beer industry, as InBev would control 46 percent of the country’s annual sales.  “Even small price increases could lead to significant harm,” Baer said.  For more, see the NYTimes.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is drafting rules for “swaps,” under the directive of the Dodd-Frank financial markets overhaul.  The stakes are high, as the complex instruments account for eight-ninths of the derivatives market—and Wall Street banks have been jockeying to frame the proposals as too burdensome for their respective industries.  For more, see Reuters.

Capitol Hill may again take up a system of voluntary cybersecurity standards.  According to a new Senate Commerce Committee report, there is strong support among Fortune 500 companies.  U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) has spearheaded the effort, and his data suggests differing perspectives from industry leaders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Sen. Rockefeller hopes to pass a bill this year.  For more, see the Wall Street Journal.

In an ongoing effort to protect homeowners facing foreclosure, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued new rules for mortgage servicers.  The rules, which won’t take effect until January 2014, include provisions requiring banks to consider and respond to loan modification applications submitted at least 37 days before a schedule foreclosure.  Similarly, servicers must inform borrows of alternatives to foreclosure and will not be able to begin foreclosure proceedings while homeowners are seeking a loan modification.  The rules also severely limit some of the lending practices (e.g. inflated up-front fees, interest-only payments, and high debt-to-income ratios) considered predatory by consumer groups. For more detail, see articles by WashPo and CNN.

Citigroup’s Q4 earnings report underperformed this morning – in large part due to its $1.29 billion in legal costs – and the company’s stock dropped 3.4% in early trading.  While most banks are still purging their balance sheets, there is worry that we may not have seen the end of these mortgage-crisis-era liabilities.  Citigroup’s CFO, John Gerspach, hinted on a Thursday conference call:  “I think that the entire industry is still looking at some additional settlements that are still yet to appear.”  For more, see NYTimes and Reuters.  [Bank of America’s Q4 was hit by settlements as well:  WSJ]

In August 2012, six federal financial regulatory agencies issued a proposed rule to implement Section 1471 of the Dodd-Frank Act which sets forth appraisal requirements for “higher-risk” mortgage loans.

The intended purpose of the proposed rule is to tighten valuation standards for homes in order to reduce the risk of appraisal fraud, a move meant to reassure creditors, borrowers, and investors alike. Section 1471 was created as part of Congress’ intention to prevent the use of false or inflated appraisals in obtaining mortgages. If the proposed rule is finalized without amendment, lenders seeking to issue high-risk mortgage loans will be “unable to value properties on the basis of broker-price opinions, automated valuations, or drive-by appraisals”. The proposed rule would affect mortgages with annual percentage rates (APRs) at designated levels above the Average Prime Offering Rate (APOR). First-lien loans (such as standard mortgages) with an APR 1.5 percentage points above the APOR would be classified as a higher risk mortgage under the proposed rule, while first-lien jumbo loans with APRs 2.5 percentage points above, and subordinate-lien loans with an APR 3.5 percentage points above the APOR would similarly be considered higher-risk.

Read the rest of this entry »

As the debate over how to reform the housing finance market takes a back seat to the 2012 General Election, Dodd-Frank’s statutory changes to mortgage servicing will see no delay in its implementation.  On April 10, 2012, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its first set of proposed mortgage servicing rules:

“The proposed rules currently under consideration aim to protect consumers from surprises by directing servicers to provide:

• Clear monthly mortgage statements that explicitly breakdown principal, interest, fees, escrow, and due dates
• Warnings before adjusting interest rates on certain adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that explain how the new rate was determined, when it will take effect, dates of future adjustments, and a list of alternatives for consumers to consider
• Options for avoiding expensive “forced-placed” insurance, which is insurance charged to borrowers by servicers when their existing insurance appears to have lapsed
• Early outreach to struggling borrowers that informs them of potential options to avoid foreclosure

We also want to address the issue of consumers getting the “run-around” when dealing with servicers.  To accomplish this, the Bureau is considering proposals that would require:

• Payments to be credited to consumer accounts the day payment is received
• Implementing new policies and procedures so that records are kept up-to-date and accessible
• Quickly addressing and correcting errors
• Giving homeowners direct and ongoing access to servicer staff members who have access to the homeowners’ records and can actually help address their issue(s)”

The rules are scheduled to become effective in early 2013 unless the Bureau issues finals rules first.  An outline of the proposals under consideration was also posted on the Bureau’s website.

To learn more about these proposed changes to mortgage servicing as well as other housing reforms arising out of the financial crisis, please register for “The Foreclosure Crisis: Challenges and Solutions to the Mortgage Meltdown,” Friday, April 13, 2012 at the International House on the U.C. Berkeley Campus, and stay tuned as we live-blog the event throughout the day.

Not entirely—at least that’s the conclusion according to this article in the most recent ABA Infrastructure issue.The key holding of the Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion–that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts any state rule invalidating class-action waivers (such as the Discover Bank v. Super. Ct. rule in California prohibiting non-class arbitration clauses)–significantly bolsters the already superior bargaining power of defendants in class-action suits and undermines the ability ofconsumers to even undertake these suits. (There is already some evidence that banks have increased adoption of arbitration clauses as a result of the decision)

Read the rest of this entry »

The one-year anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) marks an important moment to review and reflect on the transformative changes that have taken place since enactment of the sweeping reforms.  Yet, much of the work to implement those reforms is still underway.A slew of reports and studies were released to recognize the significant milestone, and of which there are a few worth reviewing:

Read the rest of this entry »

Potentially $135 billion or the political demise of the CFPB.

Ahead of the first face-to-face negotiations between major banks and government agencies over a proposed mortgage servicing settlement, additional information is surfacing over the potential scope and scale of the settlement.  An internal presentation by the CFPB to the 50-state Attorneys Generals estimates that mortgage servicers avoided $20 billion in servicing costs by failing to adequately process loan modifications of troubled homeowners, and suggests that a proposed settlement, in addition to or as an alternative to a regulator-imposed penalty, would focus on mandates for principal reduction and short sales for underwater homeowners.

The CFPB estimates that a regulator-proposed $20 billion penalty would have limited effect on the bank’s capital ratios, suggesting that a penalty that size would not adversely affect bank solvency.   However, depending on the extent of borrower eligibility for principal reductions (i.e., how much principal is forgiven) and the number of mandated loan modifications, these mandates could cost servicers and banks anywhere between $7 billion to $135 billion.  It is unclear whether the major servicer banks could absorb a settlement costing $135 billion, although some have already speculated that the true costs could go beyond these estimates.

Read the rest of this entry »

John D. Wright, of Wells Fargo & Company, just finished giving his thoughts about the Dodd-Frank Act’s new “abusive” standard. Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act vests the newly created Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with the authority to take enforcement action against banks and other covered entities from engaging in unfair, deceptive or abusive practices. Mr. Wright highlighted § 1031(d), which defines the abusive standard, claiming that the standard introduces “radically new concepts regarding the customer’s understanding of banking products, the customer’s suitability for a banking product, and the bank’s duty to act in the interests of the consumer.”

Mr. Wright pointed out that a lack of clarity in the statute’s language and guidance from regulators makes for muddy waters for large banks future interactions with customers. First, the wording of § 1031(d)(2)(A) seems to require banks to determine each customer’s “financial literacy” to a previously unknown degree. Furthermore, banks will require further clarification as to whether the standard the Bureau will apply is that of a reasonable consumer or a particular consumer. Second, § 1031(d)(2)(B) may require that a bank determine whether a particular customer is suitable for a financial product, regardless of whether there was clear and conspicuous disclosure of product terms, even if the customer understands it. Finally, § 1031(d)(2)(C) may create a legal duty to act in their customers best interest, beyond their normal trust or investment advisory settings.

For more, please view Mr. Wright’s paper here.