COMES NOW the House! (Loan Originator Compensation)


According to wire service reports, on March 15, 2011, 31 members of the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Spencer Bachus (R-AL), sent a letter to the FRB requesting an extension of the implementation date for TILA Loan Originator Compensation rule (Rule). Based on the version circulated by certain news organizations, let's take a look at this missive.

Letter's Arguments - A Salient Selection

This Commentary offers a brief outline of selected arguments against the TILA Loan Originator Compensation rule (Rule). I am leaving out citations, where possible, for ease of reading. This outline is not meant to be comprehensive, authoritative, or relied upon for legal advice. It offers a brief synopsis of the argumentation.

Article Topics:

The Signatories

Intentionally Vague

The Letter provides this broadly worded reason for requesting a delay in the Rule's April 1, 2011 effective date:

There have been complaints among numerous stakeholders that the final regulation is "intentionally vague," that the [FRB] has refused to provide formal guidelines, and the different members of the [FRB] staff have offered differing interpretations of it's meaning.

Impact on Consumers and Mortgage Industry

The Representatives believe that the Rule should be delayed in the interest of "protecting consumers," and ensuring "a fair application to small businesses or companies that may experience significant job loss due to its implementation."

Consequently, the signatories request two actions on the part of the FRB: (1) a delay in implementation of the Rule, and (2) issuance of "proper" written guidance to facilitate compliance by affected entities.

Compensation Practices

An interesting and somewhat unsettling statement is found at the Letter's conclusion. The Representatives state that they "share the [FRB's] goal to improve compensation practices and better align incentives in the mortgage transaction," and "[they] believe that additional time to implement the final rule will help us all attain that goal."

In my view, one of the principal claims of the NAIHP and NAMB lawsuits is the failure of the FRB to "improve compensation practices" or "better align incentives." While admitting the need to rectify these adverse outcomes, the Representatives have not used this unique opportunity to specifically outline how the FRB has not attained those "goal[s]."

Long on Rhetoric, Short on Substance

Perhaps getting all the Representatives to sign this Letter is like trying to get a bunch of cats into a canvas sack. After all, they all have different constituencies and their politics differ. Unlike the Senators' letter, however, the House's Letter is not bi-partisan - all the signatories are Republicans.

To some extent, the Letter states the obvious as reasons for delaying the effective date. The issues cited above for requesting a delay are not new and the Letter provides no new ways to consider the existing issues. Perhaps the Representatives simply want to go on record about how they view the FRB's planned actions.

If that is their intent, perhaps it has been attained through sending the Letter.

But the Letter is long on rhetoric, short on substance.

Last Line of Defense

I have laid out now in a series of Commentaries and Articles why I believe the FRB should delay the Rule or provide clear and unambiguous guidance prior to the effective date.

One basis for a delay or demand for further clarification is grounded, among other things, in statutory support in requiring an impact study necessitated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) - the RFA requires an agency that has proposed a rule to prepare and make available for public comment an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis. To quote the relevant provision: this initial flexibility analysis "shall describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities." However, the FRB failed to conduct a credible analysis of the impact that the Rule would cause on small entities.

This, plus many other reasons, such as the FRB's failure to explain how a mortgage broker's practice of paying its employees based on the fees paid by a consumer is deceptive or unfair to the consumer.

Or, the FRB's position regarding compensation to affiliates, which under the FRB's interpretation holds that an "affiliate" does not qualify as a third party.

And these are just a few of the many contentious, unresolved, and dispositive issues.

At this point, the NAIHP and NAMB lawsuits probably are the last line of defense.

How those lawsuits fare will likely determine the course of events.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Jonathan Foxx, Lenders Compliance Group | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Lenders Compliance Group on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.