Merkley Amendment Will Transform LO Compensation

The Senate has passed an amendment to the Wall Street Reform bill that would ban loan originators from accepting compensation based on placing a consumer in a higher interest rate loan or a loan with less favorable terms.  The amendment also requires lenders to underwrite loans to assure a homeowner’s ability to repay the loan.

As you can imagine, loan originators everywhere are outraged.

Imagine not being able to earn extra compensation for selling a higher rate loan! Imagine making sure that homeowners can repay their loans! 

Wait a minute. Isn’t that the world we currently live in right now?

The horror we’re leaving behind if this amendment becomes law was the predatory lending frat parties of 2006.  From what I can tell, most (not all) of that is behind us. What are we really losing with the passage of the Merkley-Klobuchar Amendment?

Mortgage brokers have to disclose all yield spread premium earned as fee income on line 1 of the new Good Faith Estimate.  They will not be losing anything new.  It can be argued that mortgage brokers should have lost the ability to earn yield spread premium because it was horribly misused not by “an unsavory few

It’s The End of the World…as I know it.

Besides the fact that we will most likely be heading into 2004 price levels shortly, we are also switching mls vendors.

For the general public, switching mls vendors may not be noticeable at all, but for me it is “The End of the World…as I know it.” because I will no longer have access to hand calculating statistics for King County or any large area like Zip Code.

The New Matrix system will work on any browser, so I can carry the mls around on an iPad…I’m happy about that. But I will have to devise an entirely different method of conveying market strength and weakness using the new system in smaller quantity analysis.

Maybe not the end of the world…but clearly the end of the world as I know it.

The Pass Rate of the New National Loan Originator Exam is 67%. Who is/isn’t passing?

I’ve had a chance to meet many loan originators during the past 5 months while teaching the required 20 Hour SAFE Comprehensive Pre-licensing and Exam Prep Course.

Currently, loan originators in WA State who have not been previously licensed are going through the licensing and testing phase which includes the required 20 Hour Course, mandated by the Federal SAFE Act (Secure and Fair Enforcement) Act of 2008.

I have some feedback for folks who are looking at the pass rates of the new national exam (currently 67%)  and wondering who is passing and who is not passing the exam. But first some background.

Prior to 2010, loan originators working under a mortgage broker in some states had to become licensed and pass state exams by scoring at least 70%.  State exam included state law, federal law, mortgage-related mathematical computations and a few questions on ethics.  At the end of 2007 WA State had roughly 14,000 licensed LOs.  In 2008 there was a WA state law change in which the definition of the word “lender

It’s “$8,000 Friday”!

The Tax Credit expires today. For some people that means it is $8,000 Friday…for others it is $6,500 Friday, but any way you slice it is a very important day for many people who are currently buying homes.

Oddly, given I have not and never would have, advised my clients to buy to get a tax credit, two of my clients are in “issues” involving the tax credit expiring today, somewhat coincidentally.

There are many buyers who just happened to find the right home that just came on market last week or this week, who are biting their nails waiting for a seller response “by 4/30”. If the seller is a bank or someone out of State or out of Country, this is a serious concern today.

There are other buyers who have a signed around contract before 4/30/2010, but who are in the process of negotiating the home inspection. Cancelling on inspection for a $3,000 item, and losing an $8,000 credit as a result, is part of the decision process on inspection negotiations today for many people. If they choose a different house next week vs. the one they currently have in contract, they lose the opportunity of the tax credit.

Any way you slice it…the clock is ticking…and weighing heavily on many, many people today. For those in a “gray area” as to being eligible for the credit, and there are many and varied gray areas, it is even more difficult.

In my opinion, it IS part a an agent’s job to help you preserve the right to that tax credit, and work hard to that end today. It is also part of their job to lay out the consequence of cancelling on inspection in the next several days and buying a different house instead. But NO agent can guarantee one way or the other that you WILL in fact get the credit. We can only help preserve your right to request it.

For those looking to receive a $6,500 credit, be aware of this:

“Additionally, you must have lived in the same principal residence for any five-consecutive-year period during the eight-year period that ended on the date the replacement home is purchased. For example, if you bought a home on Nov. 30, 2009, the eight-year period would run from Dec. 1, 2001, through Nov. 30, 2009. (11/17/09)”

If you live here in a rental, and still own your previous residence in another State that you lived in for less than five years…as I said…lots of gray areas. At the end of the day…this particular “$8,000 Friday”…some will be better off and some will not. An important day in the lives of many people who are in the process of buying homes.

Is that home over-priced?

When my clients send me a home they want to see and ask for my thoughts, I often respond “nice house; seems a little over-priced to me”. Sometimes they wonder how I know that before seeing the house.

Using general statistics to establish an immediate reaction to price, gives you a good starting point for home valuation.
graph (41)

The above graph is a good “cheat-sheet” for shoot from the hip value reaction. We can see that the recent history bottom of 3/09 is equivalent to 4/05 pricing.

One of my clients sent me a property, nice one, and I quickly checked to see that the owner bought it brand new in the summer of 2004 for $600,000 and the asking price is $750,000. “Looks a bit over-priced” because it was brand new when they bought it, so they didn’t (or shouldn’t have needed to) remodel anything. We are at May/June 2005 pricing (as you can see in the above chart).

The market didn’t increase by 20% from Summer of 2004 to Spring of 2005. New homes depreciate as 2004 new carpet is now 2010 old carpet. 2004 new paint and hot water tank are now heading toward the down-slope of their life expectancy period.

By all accounts asking 20% more for a home bought new in 2004 is not likely realistic. Median home price in June of 2004 was $340,000. Current month to date median price is $375,000. so that would put that property bought for $600,000 in June of 2004 at $660,000 to $665,000 today before applying depreciation. ($375 divided by $340 times $600 = $660) So my gut reaction to a $750,000 asking price is that it is almost $100,000 over where it should be.

That doesn’t mean that someone won’t pay $750,000 for it. The only question is…Is that someone who will pay about $90,000 too much for it…YOU?

(Required Disclosure: Stats in this post are not compiled, posted or verified by The Northwest Mulitple Listing Service.)

Everybody LOVES bank fraud!

Is it just me, or do loan orginators routinely encourage bank fraud? First, the background: There are a variety of federal and state laws that make it a VERY serious crime to mislead a lender for purposes of getting a mortgage. At the federal level, 18 USC sec 1014 makes it a crime to “knowingly make any false statement or report . . . for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of” a commercial lender. (Emphasis added). The penalty? A cool million dollar fine and/or 30 years in federal prison. Yup, not a misprint: 30 years in Club Fed. On the state level, RCW 19.44.080 makes it a crime to “knowingly make any misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission during the mortgage lending process knowing that it may be relied on by a mortgage lender.” (Emphasis added). The penalty? Its a class B felony, so 10 years in the joint and/or $20 grand.

As indicated by these laws, as a society we cherish honesty to lenders and believe very strongly that anyone who is dishonest AT ALL in order to secure a loan has committed a very serious crime. The problem, of course, appears to be that nobody in the RE industry agrees. Rather, it appears that the RE industry treats this type of bank fraud (misleading a lender in order to facilitate getting a loan) to be something akin to taking a second serving of dessert: bad form, sure, but if nobody knows…

You may be thinking: “What on earth is Craig talking about? Everyone I know is honest and abides by the law!” Well, think further, and in particular think about a buyer’s inspection contingency response. The NWMLS provides a Form 35R specifically for resolution of the inspection contingency. By its terms, the 35R and any other notices or addenda relating to any modifications or repairs becomes a part of the contract, and of course the lender has the right to receive (and buyer has the obligation to provide to the lender) the entire contract.

How many agents out there have used the Form 35R to request repairs and/or price reductions? And have you gotten any feedback from the loan originator once he or she receives a copy of the signed form? I have. The 35R had the fourth box checked (buyer proposes modifications) and the text below, “Sale price reduced to $440k.” About as simple as can be — but apparently still likely to arouse the suspicions of the underwriters, thus complicating the process. The loan originator’s request? “Toss” the 35R and instead use a Form 34 for a simple price reduction.

The problem? That clearly violates the state law above, and probably the federal law too (at least it will when the buyer signs at escrow a statement indicating that he has provided the lender with all requested information, including a complete copy of the PSA). In other words, even LENDERS encourage violation of the laws designed entirely to protect lenders.

And one wonders how we inflated the housing bubble…..

Regulators: Mortgage Lead Generation Firms are Violating State and Federal Laws

So here we go again.  Now that mortgage rates are headed up, the deceptive lead generation ads are crawling back onto the web.  Here’s a great example from a Google ad:

FHA Refinance 4.0% Fixed
$160,000 FHA mortgage for $633/mo.
No SSN req.
Calculate payments now!
MortgageRefinance.LendGo.com

When clicking through, the lendgo.com lead generation site asks some simple questions like the value of my home, zip code, whether or not I’ve ever filed bankruptcy, etc.  Then I’m asked to provide personal information and assured that I’m dealing with a secure website.  Name address, phone number, etc.  After I click “submit,” I’m told that I will be given four quotes. I clicked ‘submit’ after offering them the following:
First Name: Your Ad
Last Name: Violates TILA
But I don’t get a quote. Instead I’m asked even more questions before being told that four lenders will contact me within 24 hours:  Quicken Loans, Onyx Mortgage, Americash Mortgage Bankers (I’m thinking it was a seven beer night when someone decided on that name), and….I’m totally surprised here:  Paramount Equity Mortgage.

So, Quicken, Onyx, Americash, and PEM, Are you aware that the lead generation company you’re using is violating the Truth in Lending Act and probably a handful of state laws by advertising a note rate without conspicuously including APR in that ad? 

I bet someone at these mortgage companies assumed that no one would be able to trace the deceptive ad back to them.  Nah, their chief compliance officer couldn’t be that stupid. Oh wait, maybe they don’t have a chief compliance officer. Or perhaps these big mortgage companies are just making a strategic business decision: Violate TILA and some state laws and if we get caught, we’ll just pay the fine and move on because we’ll be able to earn six times the amount of the fine anyways. 

Regulators:  You’re being tossed under the bus in Washington D.C. this week as banker after banker stands before various congressional committees telling the world that the bank regulators were asleep at the wheel. I’m not going to throw you under the bus. Why? Because there never will be enough money to regulate every single mortgage lending transaction across your area of authority.  You’ve got limited resources and regulators are always trying to balance everyone’s needs and are constantly being pulled in 10 different directions at once. 

So I’d like to give the regulators a helping hand.

If mortgage companies are buying leads from a firm that’s using deceptive advertising, you can write out 5 consent orders and be very efficient with your time.  Just start clicking on all the banner ads!  It will be easy and mildly entertaining for your staff! At the same time, you’ll help consumers avoid getting sucked into doing business with a company that has chosen a business model of attracting consumers who are an easy mark. 

They fell for the click through ad. They believed there was a 30 year fixed rate mortgage available under 4 percent!  If they were stupid enough to fall for this, then that means perhaps the mortgage company can also win all kinds of other shell games with these folks, who probably believe there’s a diet pill that will help them lose those last 10 pounds and that the secret to prosperity and abundance is to think thoughtful thoughts.  

Wait! Maybe that’s the secret to the housing market recovery: We can just use the power of abundant thinking to “think” away all those short sale, REOs, and re-defaulting loan mods! If anyone’s going to try this, let me know and I’ll calendar ahead to check back with you in 2014.

Here’s another google ad:
3.44% APR – Refinance Now
$200,000 Mortgage for $898/Month!
As Featured on CNNMoney & Forbes.
DeltaPrimeRefinance.com

Oh my goodness! This lead generation firm actually quoted APR! Which would be a cause for celebration, until you click through and see that they’re quoting a 5/1 ARM loan, and then they also inform us that this might be a 15 year amortization.  Of course the APR looks awesome. Regulators, it would be interesting to find out exactly how many people, after filling out the online lead generation form, decided to select a traditional 30 year fixed rate loan instead of an ARM loan or a 15 year amortization.  Classic bait and switch.  Like shooting fish in a barrel.

These lead generation companies appear to hold a mortgage broker or lender licenses in various states, yet the consumer information is sold to other licensed brokers or lenders.

Question: Are mortgage brokers, lenders and banks responsible for making sure the leads they purchased are generated by advertisements that do not violate state and federal law?  If the answer is no, then deceptive mortgage lending advertising will continue to grow as long as brokers, lenders and banks are able to skirt law by purchasing these leads.

To the loan originators who regularily purchase these leads: we need to send you to Tiger’s rehab center and wean you off the crack.  Deceptive ads are poison to the system and they make it harder for you to procure clients using advertising methods that are transparent, ethical, and legal.

Maybe the broker/lender/banker willl say “We sign a contract and it’s the lead gen company’s responsibility to make sure the leads are generated according to state and federal law.”  If I was a regulator (and sometimes I like to put on a dark blue suit and high heels and pretend I’m a regulator in the privacy of my own home) I might say, in response, “So what method do you use to be certain that the lead gen companies you deal with are advertising according to state and federal law?” 

Quicken Loans, Onyx Mortgage, Americash Mortgage Bankers and Paramount Equity Mortgage, all a rational, thinking consumer has to do is google or bing your company name with the word “complaints” in the search box like I just did and they’d have all the info they need.  But the rational, thinking consumer is not your target market.

WaaahMu: My Take on Washington Mutual’s Testimony

Yesterday I tuned in to CSPAN to watch Washington Mutual execs answer to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee about the failure of Washington Mutual.    There are several things I found interesting…former CEO Killinger’s whining about WaMU’s unfair treatment of the banks dissolve and lack of taking any accountability as the leader of the bank for the past 18 years is not one of them.   The testimony is very timely as our Congress is looking at financial reform, I hope they pay attention to what is being revealed.

Here are some points I find interesting:

From the Associated Press:

WaMu’s pay system rewarded loan officers for the volume of loans they closed on. Extra bonuses even went to loan officers who overcharged borrowers on their loans or levied stiff penalties for prepayment, according to the report of the Senate panel’s investigation.

“Washington Mutual engaged in lending practices that created a mortgage time bomb,” Levin said. “Because volume and speed were king, loan quality fell by the wayside.” …

In some cases, sales associates in WaMu offices in California fabricated loan documents, cutting and pasting false names on borrowers’ bank statements, the panel found. The company’s own probe in 2005, three years before the bank collapsed, found that two top producing offices – in Downey and Montebello, Calif. – had levels of fraud exceeding 58 percent and 83 percent of the loans. Employees violated the bank’s policies on verifying borrowers’ qualifications and reviewing loans…”

Currently the Federal Reserve is looking at changing how mortgage originators are compensated.   They do not want compensation to be based in any part of the terms of the loan (such as the loan amount).    This has caused some banks to change to a reward system based on volume (as Washington Mutual did) instead of the merits of each individual loan.  

From Senator Levin’s opening statement:

“Washington Mutual and Long Beach compensated their loan officers and processors for loan volume and speed over loan quality. Loan officers were also paid more for overcharging borrowers – obtaining higher interest rates or more points than called for in the loan pricing set out in the bank’s rate sheets – and were paid more for including stiff prepayment penalties…”

The difference between mortgage bankers and mortgage brokers compensation is that mortgage brokers are the only one’s who are required to disclose how they’re compensated on the “back end” (yield spread premium).  

James Vanasek, former Chief Credit Officer and Chief Risk Officer seemed relieved to have a chance to tell the subcommittee how his attempts to right Washington Mutual were ignored from management.   From his submitted testimony, he feels that Washington Mutuals tagline sent the wrong message to their mortgage originators: the “Power of Yes” absolutely needed to be balanced with “The Wisdom of No.”

“Because of the compensation systems rewarding volume vs quality and the independent structure of the loan originators, I am confident that at times borrowers were coached to fill out applications with overstated incomes or net worth adjusted to meet the minimum underwriting policy requirements. Catching this kind of fraud was difficult at best and required the support of line management. Not surprisingly, Loan originators constantly threatened to quit and go to Countrywide or elsewhere if their loan applications were not approved.”

Washington Mutual was one of the pioneers of the option ARM, offering this product as far back as the 80s (per Killinger’s submitted testimony)   I remember back in the 90’s participating with a Washington Mutual loan originator who was presenting the product to a group of investors.   This use of this product made more sense than how they (and many others) wound up pushing it.   

Our company actually banned this product and I know we lost business by not providing option ARMs if we could not convince the borrower to use a more fixed loan.  Account executives from every bank who had an option ARM would be sure to let us mortgage originators know just how much income we were losing.   I was (and am) okay with that.

From Senator Levin’s opening statement:

“WaMu was eager to steer borrowers to Option ARMs. Because of the gain from their sale, the loans were profitable for the bank, and because of the compensation incentives, they were profitable for mortgage brokers and loan officers. In 2003, WaMu held focus groups with borrowers, loan officers, and mortgage brokers to determine how to push the product. A 2003 report summarizing the focus group research stated: “Few participants fully understood the Option ARM. … Participants generally chose an Option ARM because it was recommended to them by their Loan Consultant….

To increase Option ARM sales, WaMu increased the compensation paid to employees and outside mortgage brokers for the loans, and allowed borrowers to qualify for the loan [based on a minimum payment]…”

From the LA Times:

Adding to the problems, WaMu and Long Beach Mortgage frequently steered borrowers who qualified for prime loans into subprime loans, the subcommittee found.

This post is all ready too long to discuss Long Beach Mortgage…but I can’t help but share this point I’ve tried making several times about what happened time and time again with Account Executives from banks (not just WaMu) who called on mortgage brokers to push the bank product (from Huffington Post):

“Within Long Beach Mortgage, former employees described how some sales people taught brokers how to break the rules, including using fake and forged documents.”

I’m glad to say I never sent a loan to Long Beach Mortgage and somehow I managed to only send one loan to Washington Mutual (which was an interesting story in its own).

And I would like to say that consumers can feel better about selecting a mortgage originator today, thanks to the SAFE Act, however mortgage originators who work for a depository bank (such as Washington Mutual) are not required to be licensed, they’re only required to be registered (you can thank Congress for that).