Loan Officer Compensation Reform

QUESTION 

We are a Mini-Correspondent located in the Northwest. We mostly originate QM loans. When we do non-QM loans, we broker them. We've been in business for almost twenty years, and there are eight of us. All our compensation comes from the originating. 

I am interested in all the talk about how Congress plans to change the LO compensation regulations. Frankly, what I've read is complicated. I want to know what issues are involved. And, I want to know how Congress is planning to deal with those issues. 

My mortgage broker organization has put out some information about their position. And the lenders' organization has taken a position. But I am not sure what all the complaining is about. I'm not saying that some change is not needed. I just can't figure out what the change is supposed to be.

 My question is, what reforms are they trying to make to the LO compensation rule? 

SOLUTION 

Loan Officer Compensation Policy 

RESPONSE 

The arguments and proposals for loan officer compensation reform are somewhat complicated. So, trying to navigate their implications can be daunting. The Community Home Lenders of America (CHLA) recently released a white paper advocating for reforms to the loan originator (LO) compensation rule, specifically calling for Congress to narrow the scope of the current regulations.[i] The CHLA argues that the current rules, designed to prevent predatory lending practices, have unintended consequences that harm consumers and stifle competition within the mortgage industry. 

I'll provide you with some of the positions outlined in the CHLA's white paper. We are tracking these suggested reforms, as we do virtually all other federal and state regulatory compliance matters that affect banks and non-banks involved in residential mortgage loan origination and servicing. When appropriate, we will issue updates and alerts through our newsletters. 

I will outline the reform issues by outlining some of the main concerns, the proposed reforms, and the actions suggested to effectuate change. My outline contains sections and subsections to reduce the complexity of the subject issues. In the last section, I will delve a bit deeper. Keep in mind, though, there is considerable complexity, and my explication is not meant to be comprehensive. 

The CHLA's Main Concerns 

The CHLA has expressed several concerns. The following four, in broad strokes, are perhaps the main concerns. 

Harm to Consumers 

The CHLA argues that the current LO compensation rules, which restrict how much lenders can pay their loan originators, can effectively prevent lenders from matching competitors' offers and potentially result in borrowers missing out on better deals. 

Stifled Competition 

The CHLA claims that these rules create an uneven playing field, where brokers can offer more flexible compensation structures than retail lenders, hindering competition and limiting borrower choices. 

Unintended Consequences 

The CHLA contends that the rigid regulations discourage loan officers from working with borrowers over extended periods and make it less attractive for lenders to offer loans through State Housing Finance Agency (HFA) bond programs, which are crucial for low-income and minority borrowers. 

Focus on Inter-Firm Compensation 

The CHLA suggests that the original intent of the Dodd-Frank Act's LO compensation rule was to address yield spread premiums between firms, not to restrict compensation within a lender's own organization. 

the CHLA's Proposed Reforms 

Allow Matching Competitor Offers 

The CHLA proposes allowing lenders to reduce compensation to their loan originator employees to match a competing offer for the same borrower.

Fee Splitting Violations

QUESTION 

We were cited for two RESPA violations. The first thing we supposedly had was an undisclosed referral arrangement. But in our view, there was no increase in our charges, so we do not believe we did something wrong. 

The other violation was about fee splitting. I became a mortgage broker a year ago. I am not a compliance person, and I don’t even know what that is, but based on the banking department’s letter, it means we had an arrangement with a company to split the fees on a mortgage loan. Now, I disagree about us even having such an arrangement, let alone splitting any fees. I now have to prove it to the banking department. 

I need to know more. I want to understand how these violations could cause such a big response from the banking department. I have other questions, but these are the two that matter most to me. I contacted your Brokers Compliance Group to discuss everything. 

Did we actually violate RESPA if there was no increase in our charges? 

Are there exemptions to the prohibitions on referral fees and fee splitting? 

COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS 

Brokers Compliance Group 

Policies and Procedures 

ANSWER 

RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) refers to a “thing of value” as including, but not limited to, any payment, advance, funds, loan, service, or other consideration.[i] To broaden this concept, a “thing of value” includes, without limitation, monies, things, discounts, salaries, commissions, fees, duplicative payments of a charge, stock, dividends, distributions of partnership profits, franchise royalties, credits representing monies that may be paid at a future date, the opportunity to participate in a money-making program, retained or increased earnings, increased equity in a parent or subsidiary entity, special bank deposits or accounts, special or unusual banking terms, services of all types at special or fee rates, sales or rentals at special prices or rates, lease or rental payments based in whole or in part on the amount of business referred, trips and payment of another person’s expenses, or reduction in credit against an existing obligation. My firm has come across many types of “thing of value” arrangements at one time or another. You get the point! 

By the way, the term “payment” is effectively synonymous with the giving or receiving of any “thing of value” and does not require a transfer of money.[ii] 

If you have a particular arrangement for referrals, and you are not sure if the arrangement violates RESPA, contact a competent compliance professional to discuss your plans. 

With respect to your view that there was no increase in the charge, therefore, there should be no violation of RESPA, you are 100% wrong. The fact that the transfer of a thing of value does not result in an increase in any charge made by the entity giving the thing of value is irrelevant in determining whether the act is prohibited.[iii] 

The answer about exemptions[iv] to the referral and fee splitting prohibitions is both specifically outlined in RESPA with examples. I will provide a brief outline here; however, a compliance evaluation should be undertaken to ensure any plan based on an exemption is thoroughly vetted by a compliance professional. 

The RESPA specifically provides seven exemptions to referral and fee splitting prohibitions. 

The RESPA exemptions are: 

1.   A payment to an attorney at law for services actually rendered; 

2.   A payment by a title company to its duly appointed agent for services actually performed in the issuance of a policy of title insurance; 

3.   A payment by a lender to its duly appointed agent or contractor for services actually performed in the origination, processing, or funding of a loan; 

4.   A payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed; 

5.   A payment pursuant to cooperative brokerage and referral arrangements or agreements between real estate agents and real estate brokers;[v] 

6.   Normal promotional and educational activities that are not conditioned on the referral of business and that do not involve the defraying of expenses that otherwise would be incurred by persons in a position to refer settlement services or business incident thereto; or 

7.  An employer’s payment to its own employees for any referral activities. 

I would argue that each of these examples requires significant explication by a compliance professional who has core competency in interpreting and applying the requirements of RESPA and Regulation X. 

There has been some confusion about different versions of exemptions for payments to employees. The exemptions from the referral fee and fee splitting prohibitions are contained in Regulation X, the implementing regulation of RESPA.[vi] The Code of Federal Regulations includes an Effective Date Note[vii] that sets forth a second version of the same version with different provisions regarding payments to employees. Congress prohibited the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from implementing the revised version until July 31, 2007, and it required HUD to provide advance public notice if it ever intended to implement the different provisions. But, HUD has never acted to implement the revised version. 

Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA
Chairman & Managing Director 

Lenders Compliance Group

________________________

[i] 12 USC § 2602(2)
[ii] 12 CFR 3500.14(d)
[iii] 12 CFR § 3500.14(g)(2)
[iv] 12 CFR 3500.14(g)(1)
[v] The statutory exemption refers only to fee divisions within real estate brokerage arrangements when all parties are acting in a real estate brokerage capacity and has no applicability to any fee arrangements between real estate brokers and mortgage brokers or between mortgage brokers.
[vi] Regulation X § 3500.14(g)(3)
[vii] 12 CFR § 3500.14(g), Effective Date Note

Sham Employment

QUESTION
We are the CEO and General Counsel of a regional mortgage banker. We decided to write you about an administrative action that has been taken against us by our state banking department.

The issue involves employer-employee compensation. The banking department claims that we are engaged in “sham employment” in violation of RESPA. We do not want to describe the alleged violation here. 

However, we would like to know some history and context related to “sham employment.” We have already contacted your firm to conduct a risk assessment of our employment practices. 

What is “sham employment?”

ANSWER
To say this area of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) is complicated would be an understatement. Thank you for contacting us to assist you. If you or anyone else would like to discuss this subject, please feel free to contact me HERE.

Right from the start, issues involving employer-employee compensation have proved to be one of the more controversial areas covered by RESPA. 

You can go back to HUD’s decision in 1996 to withdraw the employer-employee exemption the Department had promulgated only four years earlier,[i] followed by HUD’s Congressionally mandated postponement of the effective date of the withdrawal.[ii] 

As a result, the 1992 exemption, which states that Section 8 of RESPA does not prohibit an employer’s payment to its own employees for any referral services, remains in effect. That section of the RESPA statute specifically lists several practices that do not violate the statute. 

The statute provides: 

Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting (1) the payment of a fee … (C) by a lender to its duly appointed agent for services actually performed in the making of a loan, (2) the payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed … 

The foregoing subsections support the payment of fees by employers to their employees.

In December 2011, when the CFPB republished Regulation X as its own regulation, it removed the unimplemented provisions of the 1996 rule that had remained part of HUD’s Regulation X. Accordingly, Regulation X, RESPA’s implementing regulation, currently allows an employer to pay its own employees for any referral activity. For the most part, this is all most mortgage professionals usually need to know about employer-employee compensation in the context of “sham employment.” 

In place of the 1992 exemption, HUD adopted but then postponed the effective date, and then the CFPB permanently eliminated it, providing two additional limited exemptions for payments: 

1. One for employer payments to managerial employees.[iii] 

2. Another for payments to employees who do not perform settlement services.[iv] 

The proposed 1996 revision also would have added a third exemption to clarify that payments made to an employer’s own bona fide employee for generating business for that employer are permissible.[v] 

HUD’s May 9, 1997, proposal,[vi] which the Department withdrew on February 13, 2001,[vii] would have added a new “like-provider” exemption to RESPA’s Section 8 prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees. (I will not treat the 1996 amendments and the proposed “like-provider” exemption in this response.)

HUD proposed amending Regulation X[viii] to add an exemption that would allow payments by an employer to its own bona fide employees for the referral of settlement service business to an affiliated settlement service provider, provided that the referred settlement service business is the same category of settlement service as provided by the employer of the employee making the referral, the employee makes the affiliated business arrangement disclosure[ix], and the employee making the referral does not perform any other category of settlement service in the same transaction.

Thus, here is the current situation with respect to your question about “sham employment,” specifically, the variety of developments regarding payments by an employer to its employees. Under RESPA, an employer may pay its own employees for any settlement service, including referrals to affiliates. A company may pay the employees of another company only reasonable compensation for settlement services actually rendered.

HUD has made clear, both in its regulatory guidance and its enforcement actions,[x] that it regards “sham employment” or “bogus employee” arrangements as RESPA violations. There is no reason to believe the CFPB takes a different position on this issue.

Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA
Chairman & Managing Director
Lenders Compliance Group

________________________

[i] 12 CFR 1024.14(g)(1)(vii), originally adopted by 57 Fed. Reg. 49600 (November 2, 1996) and republished by the CFPB, 76 Fed. Reg. 78978 (December 20, 2011)
[ii] Section 2103(b) of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (Title II of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. 104-208), signed by President Clinton on September 30, 1996; 61 Fed. Reg. 58,472 (11/15/96)
[iii] Withdrawn Regulation X Section 3500.14(g)(1)(viii)
[iv] Withdrawn Regulation X Section 3500.14(g)(1)(ix)
[v] Withdrawn Regulation X Section 3500.14(g)(1)(vii)
[vi] 62 Fed. Reg. 25,740 (May 9, 1997)
[vii] 66 Fed. Reg. 25,478, at 25,497 (5/14/01). HUD withdrew the proposal following the January 20, 2001, issuance of a “Regulatory Review Plan” by the new Bush administration’s White House Chief of Staff, Andrew H. Card, Jr. HUD pointed out in its semiannual regulatory agenda that “Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that HUD will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows the new HUD Administration to further assess the subject matter and determine whether rulemaking for this subject matter is appropriate.”
[viii] Section 3500.14(g)(1)
[ix] As provided in 12 CFR 1024.15
[x] For instance, see the Znet Financial settlement (September 17, 2003). HUD found that Znet paid ReMax of Atlanta real estate agents as "employees" even though the agents performed little or no work for the lender. These agents were, therefore, sham “employees" who did little or no work for referral fees. Investigators found the agents performed little or no origination work other than filling out loan application forms.