LENDERS COMPLIANCE GROUP®

AARMR | ABA | ACAMS | ALTA | ARMCP | IAPP | IIA | MBA | MERSCORP | MISMO | NAMB

Showing posts with label GSE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GSE. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

How to Prepare for a Global Recession

YOUR COMPLIANCE QUESTION 

YouTube

I am the CFO of a Mortgage REIT, a residential mortgage lender, and a mortgage servicer. Our board met to discuss what could happen to our mortgage originations in the event of a global recession. Our secondary and capital markets department is already gearing up for a recession. Our loan originations were affected by rising rates – and not in a good way. Our margins have been compressed, and hedging is difficult. 

Your name came up in the meeting, as one of the board members knows you. The thought was that you have many clients and probably have a good idea about the overall condition of the mortgage banking industry and how it can prepare for a recession. Because of your place in compliance and risk management, she feels that you could shed light on how we can prepare for a recession. Thank you for considering our question! 

How can a mortgage lender protect itself in a global recession? 

OUR COMPLIANCE SOLUTION

AI POLICY PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKING™  

Our AI Policy Program aligns with Freddie Mac's AI governance requirements for Freddie Mac Sellers/Servicers. Responsible AI practices can help align AI system design, development, and use with applicable legal and regulatory guidelines. 

Our AI Policy Program consists of the following policies:  

1.      Artificial Intelligence Governance Policy

2.      Artificial Intelligence Use Policy

3.      Artificial Intelligence Workplace Policy

4.      Artificial Intelligence Credit Underwriting Policy

5.      Artificial Intelligence Do & Do Not Policy

6.      Artificial Intelligence Ethics Policy

7.      Artificial Intelligence Vendor Management Policy  

Contact us for the presentation and pricing!  

RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION 

Our clients often discuss how their compliance failures result in direct financial losses. During a period of financial stress, a lender scrambling to address compliance deficiencies while also managing credit losses and liquidity pressures faces a compounded crisis that can accelerate failure. In this article, I want to address your specific question about what happens in mortgage banking in a global recession and how to prepare for it. 

Compliance Amplifies Everything 

Let me state at the outset that compliance during a recession amplifies everything! Specifically, in a recession, the compliance-stability connection intensifies because: 

  • Regulators increase examination frequency and scrutiny, 
  • GSEs conduct more aggressive post-purchase file reviews, 
  • Borrower complaints rise sharply, triggering CFPB investigations, 
  • Desperate borrowers and originators increase fraud risk, making compliance controls more critical, 
  • Investors have less tolerance for defects and push repurchases more aggressively, and 
  • State attorneys general become more active in mortgage enforcement. 

A lender entering a recession with a strong compliance foundation is dramatically better positioned than one carrying hidden violations that regulators and investors are about to discover. 

Fundamental Rule 

Here's the fundamental rule to planning for a recession: 

Lenders who prepare during good times survive recessions;

lenders who assume good times last forever do not. 

The 2008 crisis wiped out hundreds of mortgage companies that were profitable just 18 months earlier. The ones that survived – and thrived afterward – had built conservative balance sheets, diversified channels, and operational flexibility long before the storm arrived. 

Let's zoom out to the implications of a worldwide recession on mortgage banking. Understanding its impact on the banking ecosystem will give us a perspective on how a lender can protect itself in a recession.

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Freddie Mac Deadline: March 3, 2026 – AI Governance Framework

YOUR COMPLIANCE QUESTION 

We are using your AI Policy Program. Upon receipt, we had it reviewed by our AI committee to determine whether it complies with Freddie's requirements for establishing a comprehensive AI governance framework for AI and Machine Learning. 

I am pleased to report that your AI Policy Program received the committee's approval. It met our checklist based on Freddie's requirements. 

As a Freddie Mac Seller/Servicer, we want to know what the effect would be on us if we had relationship partners that are not in compliance with the AI governance framework.   

What restrictions will Freddie Mac impose on us if our relationship partners do not comply with their AI requirements as of March 3, 2026? 

Signed,

An Anxious Compliance Manager 

OUR COMPLIANCE SOLUTION 

AI POLICY PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKING 

Our AI Policy Program aligns with Freddie Mac's AI governance requirements for the Freddie Mac Seller/Servicer (or "Lender"). Our well-constructed AI Policy Program is a proactive means designed to avoid and mitigate risks associated with Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Responsible AI practices can help align AI system design, development, and use with applicable legal and regulatory guidelines. 

Our AI Policy Program consists of the following policies: 

1.      Artificial Intelligence Governance Policy

2.      Artificial Intelligence Use Policy

3.      Artificial Intelligence Workplace Policy

4.      Artificial Intelligence Credit Underwriting Policy

5.      Artificial Intelligence Do & Do Not Policy

6.      Artificial Intelligence Ethics Policy

7.      Artificial Intelligence Vendor Management Policy 

Discount offer available until March 3, 2026! 

Contact us for the presentation and pricing. 

OUR RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION 

Thank you for using our AI Policy Program. Since its release on October 30, 2025, it has been in considerable demand. 

Our AI Policy Program for Mortgage Banking, which meets Freddie Mac's AI Governance Framework ("AI Framework"), is the first to provide a set of AI policies dedicated to mortgage banking. 

We had been tracking the GSE formulation of AI requirements for several months. 

On March 11, 2025, Freddie released a formal AI/ML governance framework in its Seller/Servicer Guide ("Guide"), introducing a comprehensive AI Framework for Sellers and Servicers that requires formal policies for the use of artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning ("ML"). This update mandated that any AI/ML used in the origination or servicing of Freddie Mac-eligible loans be governed by strict policies. 

On December 3, 2025, Bulletin 2025-16 was issued, clarifying timelines and expectations and stating that AI is no longer optional. In effect, Freddie asserted that implementation is a mission-critical, governed enterprise function. 

The compliance effective date is March 3, 2026. 

After considerable review, research, and drafting, we issued our AI Policy Program on October 30, 2025, thirty-four days before Freddie issued Bulletin 2025-16 on December 3, 2025, and Bulletin 2025-17 issued on December 10, 2025. 

On December 10, 2025, Freddie issued Bulletin 2025-17, which introduced revisions to AI Tools relating to servicing, information security, and Seller/Servicer insurance, with most changes effective on March 3, 2026

In the context of the AI Framework, "AI Tools" are any artificial intelligence or machine learning tools used in the loan lifecycle. 

BULLETINS 

Bulletin 2025-16 solidifies the compliance effective date of March 3, 2026, requires Lenders to have a comprehensive governance framework for AI/ML Tools used in loan origination or servicing, and, effective January 1, 2026, Lenders must ensure executive oversight, document AI use cases, ensure fairness, mitigate bias, and manage vendor risk.

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Non-Delegated Lenders: Quality Control for Non-QM Loans

Podcast | Substack

QUESTION 

I am one of the underwriters for a non-delegated lender. We received a request from an investor to conduct quality control. My boss says we do not have to do quality control. His position is that, at most, we need only a limited quality control audit. I came from another non-delegated lender, and they always did QC. 

He says we do not have to perform most aspects of QC audits, including credit analysis, re-verifications, credit reports, appraisal reviews, adverse action reviews, EPD issues, and GSE/FHA-VA underwriting reviews. Because we originate non-QM loans, he says QC is minimal. I read your Bulletin 2017-12, and it clearly shows that non-delegated lenders should do QC. 

I would like you to discuss QC requirements for non-delegated lenders. 

Does a non-delegated lender have to do quality control for non-QM loans? 

OUR COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS 

We recommend the following compliance solutions for quality control support: 

Quality Control Audits

Our audits focus on risk mitigation, compliance, error correction, process improvement, verification, and ongoing monitoring. 

QC Tune-up®

This is our Second Line of Defense review that focuses on predictable output, reliable data, investor confidence, and reduced production cost. 

RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION

The question about a non-delegated lender having to conduct quality control seems to be one of those perennial questions that pop up from time to time. There is no mystery to the requirement. I appreciate that you have been reading our Bulletins. Anyone who wants to subscribe to our free Bulletins, please sign up! 

Whether you are originating QM or non-QM loans, you should be conducting quality control audits. Fannie Mae's non-delegated quality control (QC) requirements include having a comprehensive written QC plan, a process for selecting loans for prefunding and post-closing reviews, and a system for reporting and taking corrective action. 

If you're a non-delegated lender originating QM loans, the QC plan should be independent of the production process, and, among other things, you must conduct a minimum number of prefunding and post-closing QC reviews each month, based on a percentage of total loan volume. 

If you're a non-delegated lender originating non-QM loans, you should have QC processes in place. Because non-QM loans do not meet the criteria for purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the lender assumes all the risk, making a robust QC program essential to manage the loan quality and potential defects. 

Let's look somewhat broadly at the QC requirements. You must have a written QC plan that outlines your QC philosophy, objectives, and risks, with a process for selecting loans for review using random and/or discretionary methods across all products. The QC function must be independent of the production process, or, at a minimum, reviews must be conducted by personnel not involved in underwriting the specific loans subject to audit. 

The QC plan for QM loans must cover both prefunding and post-closing reviews, ensuring compliance with the Fannie Mae Selling Guide, the lender contract, and applicable laws. You can check out Fannie's requirements in the Lender Quality Control Programs, Plans, and Processes section. 

With respect to pre-funding, a minimum number of prefunding reviews must be completed each month, with the loan selection meeting at least the lesser of 10% of the prior month's total loans, 10% of current month projections, or 750 loans. 

Regarding post-closing, loans must be selected for monthly reviews, and the entire QC cycle must be completed within 90 days of loan closing. 

You must have documented procedures for reporting QC findings to management, documenting loan level findings for resolution, and taking timely corrective actions. All QC-related documentation must be retained for at least three years. An internal audit of the QC process itself should be performed annually to ensure compliance with the lender's policies and procedures. Our QC Tune-up®, a Second Line of Defense function, provides such support.

Thursday, November 20, 2025

The Comeback of Portable Mortgages

AUDIO

SUBSTACK

QUESTION 

Our loan committee wants to originate portable mortgages. I am an old school guy! Is this the new gimmick to generate sales? I don't know, but it doesn't make much sense to me. When I was with Chase back in the eighties, there was a rollout similar to a portable mortgage. Well, it crashed and burned! Yet, now it's back. 

The whole deal mostly rests on the lock-in effect. You should explain it to your readers. And, contrary to the hype I'm hearing, the portable mortgage can lead to increased risk, and prices can go up. On top of that, there's no secondary market. 

Are portable mortgages yet another gimmick to generate sales? 

SOLUTIONS 

We recommend our Compliance Reviews. 

Comprehensive and responsive compliance reviews provide a deep dive understanding of strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of state and federal banking laws, rules, regulatory guidelines, investor expectations, and Best Practices. 

RESPONSE 

I understand your concerns, but I would not assert that private enterprises and government entities are concocting some grand scheme in considering a comeback of portable mortgages. As usual, market histrionics are fluttering about like untethered balloons. 

Granted, many features of portable mortgages pose risks for both homeowners and investors. 

Your memory of the portable mortgage offered by Chase Home Mortgage in the late eighties is correct. So, the basic structure of the portable mortgage goes back to that time. Chase viewed it as experimental in the sense that it was more of a prototype; that is, it was notionally a portable fixed-rate mortgage. 

However, true portability has never been achieved in this country. This is because of the prevalence of "due-on-sale" clauses that require the loan to be paid off when a home is sold. I remember that E-Trade offered a version in the early 2000s as a portable "option." Around that time, my firm provided compliance guidance to E-Trade in its development of mortgage banking compliance, but a compliance review of the portable "option" was not in our remit. The fact is, portable mortgages have remained niche products, at best. And for good reason, which I will explain shortly. 

One reason it did not catch on is obvious: the U.S. mortgage industry's structure, in which loans are often sold to investors or entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has historically not supported portability. 

No portable mortgages are currently allowed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is now actively evaluating whether to implement them in the future. Current news reports that the FHFA is working with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine how to make these loans possible in a safe and sound way, which strikes me as quite a heavy lift. Currently, Fannie and Freddie only allow fixed-rate loan transfers in limited situations, such as due to the death or divorce of the original borrower. 

The "hype" you are hearing concerns the GSE approval of portable mortgages, based on the claim that they could make it easier for homeowners to move and keep their lower interest rates, thereby unlocking more homes for sale. Maybe so. Then again, maybe not. 

Let's tack down a few important details about the structure of portable mortgages. 

A portable mortgage is a home loan that allows a homeowner to transfer their existing interest rate and terms to a new property when they move. In theory, this can save the homeowners money on closing costs and help them avoid taking out a new loan at a potentially higher interest rate. Nevertheless, the new property must meet the lender's criteria, and the homeowner must requalify financially. 

PORTABLE MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS 

Here is a brief outline of how the portable mortgage works: 

·       Transferring the Loan 

When selling one home and buying another, the existing mortgage is "transferred" to the new property.

Thursday, December 28, 2023

Appraisal and Evaluation Program

QUESTION 

Our state banking department requested that we update our independent appraisal policy. They want us to update the "Appraisal and Evaluation Program." And they want us to provide information about its independence. We bought the policy from a company that sells mortgage policies, but the examiner says the policy is "defective." 

We went back to the mortgage policy company, and they said there was nothing wrong with their policy. Obviously, there's something wrong if an examiner has a problem with it! We told the examiner that the mortgage manuals company is well known, but she didn't care and told us to update the policy. 

We don't know what to put into the policy to satisfy the examiner. We need some pointers. 

What is an appraisal and evaluation program? 

What is independence in relation to an appraisal and evaluation program? 

ANSWER 

The term "Appraisal and Evaluation Program" is found in variations throughout various regulatory frameworks. An institution's board of directors or its designated committee is responsible for adopting and reviewing policies and procedures that establish an effective real estate appraisal and evaluation program. 

We believe there are certain features of an appraisal and evaluation program. The program should: 

·       Provide for the independence of the persons ordering, performing, and reviewing appraisals or evaluations. 

·       Establish selection criteria and procedures to evaluate and monitor the ongoing performance of appraisers and persons who perform evaluations. 

·       Ensure that appraisals comply with the agencies' appraisal regulations and are consistent with supervisory guidance. 

·       Ensure that appraisals and evaluations contain sufficient information to support the credit decision. 

·       Maintain criteria for the content and appropriate use of evaluations consistent with safe and sound banking practices. 

·       Provide for prompt receipt and review of the appraisal or evaluation report to facilitate the credit decision. 

·       Develop criteria to assess whether an existing appraisal or evaluation may be used to support a subsequent transaction. 

·       Implement internal controls that promote compliance with these program standards, including those related to monitoring third party arrangements. 

·       Establish criteria for monitoring collateral values. 

·       Establish criteria for obtaining appraisals or evaluations for transactions that are not otherwise covered by the appraisal requirements of the appraisal regulations. 

Regarding the independence of the appraisal and evaluation program, for both appraisal and evaluation functions, an institution should maintain standards of independence as part of an effective collateral valuation program for all of its real estate lending activity. 

The collateral valuation program is an integral component of the credit underwriting process and, therefore, should be isolated from influence by the institution's loan production staff. We also recommend that an institution establish reporting lines independent of loan production for staff who administers the institution's collateral valuation program, including the ordering, reviewing, and acceptance of appraisals and evaluations. 

Appraisers must be independent of the loan production and collection processes and have no direct, indirect, or prospective interest, financial or otherwise, in the property or transaction.[i] These standards of independence also should apply to persons who perform evaluations. 

For a small or rural institution or branch, it may not always be possible or practical to separate the collateral valuation program from the loan production process. If absolute lines of independence cannot be achieved, an institution should be able to demonstrate clearly that it has prudent safeguards to isolate its collateral valuation program from influence or interference from the loan production process. In such cases, another loan officer, other officer, or company director may be the only person qualified to analyze the real estate collateral. However, to ensure their independence, such lending officials, officers, or directors must abstain from any vote or approval involving loans on which they ordered, performed, or reviewed the appraisal or evaluation.[ii] 

Communication between the institution's collateral valuation staff and an appraiser or person performing an evaluation is essential for exchanging appropriate information relative to the valuation assignment. An institution's policies and procedures should specify communication methods that ensure independence in the collateral valuation function. These policies and procedures should foster timely and appropriate communications regarding the assignment and establish a process for responding to questions from the appraiser or person performing an evaluation. 

We are often asked if an institution may exchange information with appraisers and persons who perform evaluations. The short answer is Yes, with restrictions; for example, you may provide a copy of the sales contract[iii] for a purchase transaction. However, an institution should not directly or indirectly coerce, influence, or otherwise encourage an appraiser or a person who performs an evaluation to misstate or misrepresent the property's value. 

Consistent with its policies and procedures, an institution also may request the appraiser or person who performs an evaluation to: 

·       Consider additional information about the subject property or comparable properties. 

·       Provide additional supporting information about the basis for a valuation. 

·       Correct factual errors in an appraisal. 

Furthermore, an institution's policies and procedures should ensure that it avoids inappropriate independence of the collateral valuation function, including: 

·       Communicating a predetermined, expected, or qualifying estimate of value, or a loan amount or target loan-to-value ratio to an appraiser or person performing an evaluation; 

·       Specifying a minimum value requirement for the property that is needed to approve the loan or as a condition of ordering the valuation; 

·       Conditioning a person's compensation on loan consummation; 

·       Failing to compensate a person because a property is not valued at a certain amount;[iv] 

·       Implying that current or future retention of a person's services depends on the amount at which the appraiser or person performing an evaluation values a property; and 

·       Excluding a person from consideration for future engagement because a property's reported market value does not meet a specified threshold. 

After obtaining an appraisal or evaluation, or as part of its business practice, a institution may find it necessary to obtain another appraisal or evaluation of a property. You would be expected to adhere to a policy of selecting the most credible appraisal or evaluation rather than the appraisal or evaluation that states the highest value. 

Further, an institution's reporting of a person suspected of non-compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and applicable federal or state laws or regulations or otherwise engaged in other unethical or unprofessional conduct to the appropriate authorities would not be viewed by governmental agencies as coercion or undue influence. Indeed, an institution should not use the threat of reporting a false allegation to influence or coerce an appraiser or a person who performs an evaluation.

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


[i] The Agencies’ appraisal regulations set forth specific appraiser independence requirements that exceed those set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Institutions also should be aware of separate requirements on conflicts of interest under Regulation Z (Truth in Lending Act), see 12 CFR 1026.42(d).

[ii] For instance, the NCUA has recognized that it may be necessary for credit union loan officers or other officials to participate in the appraisal or evaluation function although it may be sound business practice to ensure no single person has the sole authority to make credit decisions involving loans on which the person ordered or reviewed the appraisal or evaluation. 55 FR 5614, 5618 (February 16, 1990), 55 FR 30193, 30206 (July 25, 1990).

[iii] Refer to USPAP Standards Rule 1-5(a) and the Ethics Rule.

[iv] This provision does not preclude an institution from withholding compensation from an appraiser or person who provided an evaluation based on a breach of contract or substandard performance of services under a contractual provision.

Thursday, June 8, 2023

Fidelity Bond and Errors & Omissions Insurance – Fannie Mae Requirements

QUESTION

We are a mortgage lender in the northeast. We've been a Fannie Mae Seller/Servicer for many years. Our recent MORA audit found some problems handling our Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Insurance. For example, we don't have a process to notify Fannie about losses that exceed $250,000. 

Another procedure issue is we do not have a process to evaluate the insurance regularly. We were criticized for not having sufficient documentation to ensure that all insurance requirements are maintained. 

MORA found several issues with the insurance itself, such as the deductible not meeting Fannie's requirements and the coverage not meeting Fannie's guidelines. 

We now have a few days to correct these findings and convince MORA that this situation is fixed. However, we want to be sure we're on track to give them what they want. So, we're coming to you for some basic guidance on the requirements. 

What should we expect a MORA review to examine with regard to the documentation needed for a MORA review of the Fidelity Bond and Error and Omissions insurance? 

ANSWER

You have mentioned several common findings involving Fidelity Bond and Error and Omissions insurance. Fannie Mae's Mortgage Origination Risk Assessment,[i] known by its acronym "MORA," is an audit team that conducts reviews, usually on-site, which is tasked with assessing the operational capabilities, governance, and compliance with Fannie Mae's Selling Guide ("Guide") requirements. 

In addition to the findings you mention, there are other results, such as the insurance not including appropriate provisions to protect Fannie's interests, as outlined in the Guide. 

A Fannie Seller/Servicer must always be prepared for a MORA audit, which means that the Seller/Servicer must continually monitor and document its compliance with Fannie guidelines. 

We are keenly aware of the requirements reviewed in a MORA audit. Many companies use our Fannie Tune-up® as a tool to prepare for the audit and ensure that they comply with many Fannie guidelines. If interested, you can request information HERE about the Fannie Tune-up®. 

As a Seller/Servicer, you must have a blanket Fidelity Bond and Error and Omissions insurance policy in effect at all times in an amount sufficient to meet Fannie's minimum coverage requirements, maximum deductible requirements, and provision requirements.[ii] 

A fidelity bond is a form of insurance protection that covers policyholders for losses they incur due to fraudulent acts by specified individuals. Errors and omissions insurance is a type of professional liability insurance that protects companies, their workers, and other professionals against claims of inadequate work or negligent actions.

You mentioned that MORA found that your fidelity bond coverage did not meet Fannie's guidelines. Although you requested information specifically about documentation needed for a MORA review of the insurance, I will caution you to be sure that your fidelity bond coverage is equal to a percentage of the greater of your annual total Unpaid Principal Balance ("UPB") of single-family and multifamily annual mortgage loan originations or the highest monthly total UPB of single-family and multifamily servicing of mortgage loans that you own, including mortgage loans owned by you and serviced by others. Coverage must be determined using Fannie's precise formulas.[iii] With certain limitations, errors and omissions coverage must equal the amount of your fidelity bond coverage.[iv] 

Given the foregoing, at minimum you should have: 

·      a process to monitor that coverage is consistent with Fannie requirements and to note that the maximum UPB definitions are based on an annual basis, not just a point in time; 

·      a process to validate that deductibles are consistent with Fannie requirements; 

·      a process to validate annually that coverage includes required provisions; and 

·      a designated individual who maintains evidence of the fidelity bond and errors and omissions coverages. 

Now, onto your question about the documentation expectations! 

You should be able to provide at least nine types of documentation to MORA. Any defects in these categories may lead to an adverse finding on a MORA audit. I will outline them, though please understand that I must be brief, respecting the article's length and the complexity of the subject.[v] 

Documentation Required by Fannie Mae: Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Insurance[vi] 

1)    Provide the total UPB of single-family and multifamily annual mortgage loan originations (this should not be exclusive to the Fannie servicing portfolio held by your institution and should include the entire serviced portfolio). 

2)    Provide the highest monthly total UPB of single-family and multifamily servicing of mortgage loans that the seller owns, including mortgage loans owned by the seller and serviced by others. 

3)    Indicate if multifamily mortgage loans are serviced in addition to servicing single-family mortgage loans. 

4)    Indicate if there have been any occurrences within the past 12 months of a single fidelity bond or errors and omissions policy loss that is mortgage-related and the amount exceeds the lesser of $250,000 or the policy's deductible. If yes, you should describe in detail the nature of the claims and if they were mortgage-related. 

5)    Describe the process in place to notify Fannie Mae of a fidelity bond or errors and omissions policy loss that is mortgage-related within 30 days of discovery. 

6)    Describe the coverage review process, such as how often coverage is evaluated, how adequate coverage is determined, and who within your organization performs this task. 

7)    Fidelity bond policy has the following:

a.   The insurer's name on the insurance certificate;

b.   The policy and/or bond number;

c.   The named insured;

d.   The type and amount of coverage (should specify whether the insurer's liability limits are an aggregate loss or per-mortgage basis);

e.   The effective date of the insurance coverage;

f.    The expiration date of the insurance coverage; and

g.   The deductible amount of the insurance coverage. 

8)    Errors and omissions policy has the following:

a.   The insurer's name on the insurance certificate;

b.   The policy and/or bond number;

c.   The named insured;

d.   The type and amount of coverage (should specify whether the insurer's liability limits are an aggregate loss or per-mortgage basis);

e.   The effective date of the insurance coverage;

f.    The expiration date of the insurance coverage; and

g.   The deductible amount of the insurance coverage. 

9)    Contains evidence of the following provisions for both the fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy:

a.   Fannie is named as a "loss payee" on drafts the insurer issues to pay for covered losses incurred by Fannie;

b.   Fannie has the right to file a claim directly with the insurer if the lender fails to file a claim for a covered loss incurred by Fannie Mae (if available);

c.   Fannie will be notified at least 30 days before the insurer cancels, reduces, declines to renew, or imposes a restrictive modification to the lender's coverage for any reason other than partial or full exhaustion of the insurer's limit of liability under the policy; and

d.   Fannie will be notified within 10 days after the insurer receives a lender's request to cancel or reduce any coverage. 


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

________________________

[i] A Fannie team may also audit for compliance with Servicer Total Achievement and Rewards (STAR) requirements
[ii] Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Coverage, Selling Guide, A3-5-01, Fannie Mae, July 25, 2017
[iii] Fidelity Bond Policy Requirements, Selling Guide, A3-5-02, Fannie Mae, July 25, 2017
[iv] Errors and Omissions Policy Requirements, Selling Guide, A3-5-03, Fannie Mae. July 25, 2017
[v] Seller/Servicer Risk Self-Assessment, Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Insurance, Fannie Mae, 2020
[vi] See also Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Coverage Provisions, Selling Guide, A3-5-01 Fannie Mae, July 25, 2017