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

Online Group’s S.A.F.E Act Violations

QUESTION
In our recent examination, the banking department cited us for S.A.F.E. Act violations. The worst offenders were in our online group. 

The way we’re set up, the online loan officers separate between those who take an application and those who just answer phones and direct the applicants to loan officers. 

It became a licensing issue based on the definition of “taking an application” and whether anyone who spoke to the applicant was licensed in the property’s state. 

Some of the things we now have to do are install a call recording service, monitor all the calls, additional training, quarterly review of all loan officer licenses, complete description of the “hand-off” procedures, and compliance with the S.A.F.E. Act’s definition of originating mortgage loans. 

The biggest problem we face is defining what the banking department calls “mortgage loan originator activities.” We want to revamp the online group, beginning with a new definition. 

What are “mortgage loan originator activities” according to the S.A.F.E. Act?

ANSWER
There are several aspects of your inquiry leading up to the question itself. I have repeatedly said that a financial institution should not go online unless it has the appropriate policies and procedures in place. It appears that your company did exactly what I have argued against doing! I understand the need to get into online sales, but it should not be at the expense of courting regulatory violations. 

If you had come to us to build an online platform, we would have had you work with our checklist and document review that guide you in establishing an online sales group. We would be interacting every step of the way until you launch the platform. 

Such requirements would include not only the items you mention but also many more features that standardize and stabilize the interaction with consumers and ensure federal and, where applicable, state banking law compliance. 

Our firm already has the policies and procedures to conform to your business model. There are several necessary policy documents. But that’s just one feature of the build. 

You need periodic call calibration. Call calibration, which we offer, is an oversight process to monitor, rate, and report on call compliance by listening to recorded calls. Ideally, this should be done by a compliance professional. 

There are numerous disclosure requirements, both oral and written. 

And the threat of being trapped in a licensing violation is real. We have worked with clients that fell into multistate licensing violations and paid millions of dollars in civil monetary penalties. When you say “hand-off procedures,” I say be careful! 

And, most important, you need to understand what constitutes “mortgage loan originator activities” as defined by the S.A.F.E. Act (“Act”),[i] whose implementing Regulation H describes specific requirements for S.A.F.E. Act-compliant state mortgage loan originator licenses and the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry.[ii] 

To answer your question, I will treat three fundamental elements that constitute mortgage loan originator activities. The three components are (1) taking an application, (2) offering or negotiating loan terms, and (3) compensation or gain for rendering such services. 

These are not all the possible scenarios but about as comprehensive as I can provide in the space available for this article. If you want more information, please get in touch with me HERE. 

I will base my response on an appendix to the Act.[iii] This appendix is best understood as providing possible examples to aid in understanding activities that would cause an individual to fall within or outside the definition of a mortgage loan originator. Even then, they illustrate only the issue described and do not illustrate any other issues that may arise. 

Let’s begin by describing a residential mortgage loan as any loan primarily for personal, family, or household use that is secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, or other equivalent consensual security interest on a dwelling[iv] or residential real estate upon which is constructed or intended to be constructed a dwelling.[v] 

And, broadly, a loan application is a request, in any form, for an offer (or a response to a solicitation of an offer) of residential mortgage loan terms, and the information about the borrower or prospective borrower that is customary or necessary in a decision on whether to make such an offer. I know this language seems legalistic – and I guess I can’t help myself! – but in this case, every single word counts. Read it again! 

Taking an Application 

The act of taking a residential mortgage loan application means receipt by an individual for the purpose of facilitating a decision whether to extend an offer of loan terms to a borrower or prospective borrower.[vi]

Here are some examples of taking or not taking an application. 

An individual “takes a residential mortgage loan application” even if the individual: 

·    Has received the borrower or prospective borrower’s request or information indirectly, which means an individual takes an application whether they receive it “directly or indirectly” from the borrower or prospective borrower.[vii] It also means that an individual who offers or negotiates residential mortgage loan terms for compensation or gain cannot avoid licensing requirements simply by having another person physically receive the application from the prospective borrower and then pass the application to the individual; 

·    Is not responsible for verifying information. The fact that an individual who takes application information from a borrower or prospective borrower is not responsible for verifying that information – for example, the individual is a mortgage broker who collects and sends that information to a lender – does not mean that the individual is not taking an application; 

·    Only inputs the information into an online application or other automated system; or 

·    Is not involved in the approval of the loan, including determining whether the consumer qualifies for the loan. Similar to an individual who is not responsible for verification, an individual can still “take a residential mortgage loan application” even if they are not ultimately responsible for approving the loan. For instance, a mortgage broker can take a residential mortgage loan application even though it is passed on to a lender to decide whether the borrower qualifies for the loan and the ultimate loan approval. 

An individual does not take a loan application merely because the individual performs any of the following actions: 

·    Receives a loan application through the mail and forwards it, without review, to loan approval personnel. The Bureau interpreted the term “takes a residential mortgage loan application” to exclude an individual whose only role with respect to the application is physically handling a completed application form or transmitting a completed form to a lender on behalf of a borrower or prospective borrower.[viii] 

·    Assists a borrower or prospective borrower who is filling out an application by explaining the contents of the application and where particular borrower information is to be provided on the application; 

·    Generally describes for a borrower or prospective borrower the loan application process without a discussion of particular loan products; or 

·    In response to an inquiry regarding a prequalified offer that a borrower or prospective borrower has received from a lender, collects only basic identifying information about the borrower or prospective borrower on behalf of that lender. 

Offering or Negotiating Terms of a Loan 

The following examples illustrate when an individual offers or negotiates terms of a loan[ix] and, conversely, what does not constitute an offering or negotiating terms of a loan: 

Offering or negotiating the terms of a loan includes: 

·    Presenting for consideration by a borrower or prospective borrower particular loan terms, whether verbally, in writing, or otherwise, even if:

o   Further verification of information is necessary;

o   The offer is conditional;

o   Other individuals must complete the loan process;

o   The individual lacks authority to negotiate the interest rate or other loan terms; or

o   The individual lacks the authority to bind the person that is the source of the prospective financing. 

·    Communicating directly or indirectly with a borrower or prospective borrower to reach a mutual understanding about prospective residential mortgage loan terms, including responding to a borrower or prospective borrower’s request for a different rate or different fees on a pending loan application by presenting to the borrower or prospective borrower a revised loan offer, even if a mutual understanding is not subsequently achieved. 

Offering or negotiating terms of a loan does not include any of the following activities: 

·    Providing general explanations or descriptions in response to consumer queries, such as explaining loan terminology (i.e., debt-to-income ratio) or lending policies (i.e., the loan-to-value ratio policy of the lender), or describing product-related services; 

·    Arranging the loan closing or other aspects of the loan process, including by communicating with a borrower or prospective borrower about those arrangements, provided that any communication that includes a discussion about loan terms only verifies terms already agreed to by the borrower or prospective borrower; 

·    Providing a borrower or prospective borrower with information unrelated to loan terms, such as the best days of the month for scheduling loan closings at the bank; 

·    Making an underwriting decision about whether the borrower or prospective borrower qualifies for a loan; 

·    Explaining or describing the steps that a borrower or prospective borrower would need to take to obtain a loan offer, including providing general guidance about qualifications or criteria that would need to be met that is not specific to that borrower or prospective borrower’s circumstances; 

·    Communicating on behalf of a mortgage loan originator that a written offer has been sent to a borrower or prospective borrower without providing any details of that offer; or 

·    Offering or negotiating loan terms solely through a third-party licensed loan originator, so long as the non-licensed individual does not represent to the public that they can or will perform covered activities and does not communicate with the borrower or potential borrower. 

Examples:

-    A seller who provides financing to a purchaser of a dwelling owned by that seller where the offer and negotiation of loan terms with the borrower or prospective borrower are conducted exclusively by a third-party licensed loan originator.

-    An individual who works solely for a lender, when the individual offers loan terms exclusively to third-party licensed loan originators and not to borrowers or potential borrowers. 

Compensation or Gain 

An individual acts “for compensation or gain”[x] if the individual receives or expects to receive, in connection with the individual’s activities, anything of value, including, but not limited to, payment of a salary, bonus, or commission. 

Note: The concept “anything of value” is interpreted broadly and is not limited only to payments contingent upon the closing of a loan. 

An individual does not act “for compensation or gain” if the individual acts as a volunteer without receiving or expecting to receive anything of value in connection with the individual’s activities. 

Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA
Chairman & Managing Director
Lenders Compliance Group
_____________________________
[i] 12 CFR Part 1008 – S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act – State Compliance and Bureau Registration System (Regulation H)
[ii] Regulation H was issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to implement the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, title V of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (S.A.F.E. Act) (Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, 12 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.)
[iii] See Appendix A to Part 1008
[iv] As defined in section 103(w) of the Truth in Lending Act
[v] Ibid, as defined
[vi] See § 1008.103(c)(1)
[vii] Ibid
[viii] This interpretation is consistent with the definition of “loan originator” in section 1503(3) of the S.A.F.E. Act.
[ix] See § 1008.103(c)(2)
[x] See § 1008.103(c)(2)(ii)

Individual Loan Originator Compensation and Borrower Paid Transactions

QUESTION

As a mortgage broker, our company pays the loan originator the same, irrespective of whether it is a lender paid or borrower paid transaction. However, we are hearing that we may be able to pay the loan originator differently on borrower paid transactions, which would allow us to be more competitive. So, can we vary compensation based upon lender paid versus borrower paid?

ANSWER

A conservative approach is that you cannot vary individual loan originator compensation based upon whether it is borrower paid or lender paid. However, in reliance on commentary to Regulation Z, some brokers and lenders are assuming a more aggressive approach and permitting an individual loan originator’s compensation on borrower paid loans to be based on the amount of compensation paid directly by the consumer to the brokerage company. For example, the individual loan originator earns 200 bps on lender paid transactions and 70% of compensation received by broker on borrower paid. To date, we have not seen any commentary from a regulator saying this practice is not permissible.  However, you need to check with your lenders as some will not permit a variation in compensation based upon borrower paid or lender paid.  

Here are some citations to consider.

12 CFR 1026.36(d)(2)(i)(C)

If a loan originator organization receives compensation directly from a consumer in connection with a transaction, the loan originator organization may pay compensation to an individual loan originator, and the individual loan originator may receive compensation from the loan originator organization, subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

Official Commentary 36(d)(1)-2 [emphasis added]

“2. Compensation that is or is not based on a term of a transaction or a proxy for a term of a transaction. Section 1026.36(d)(1) does not prohibit compensating a loan originator differently on different transactions, provided the difference is not based on a term of a transaction or a proxy for a term of a transaction. The rule prohibits compensation to a loan originator for a transaction based on, among other things, that transaction's interest rate, annual percentage rate, collateral type (e.g., condominium, cooperative, detached home, or manufactured housing), or the existence of a prepayment penalty. The rule also prohibits compensation to a loan originator that is based on any factor that is a proxy for a term of a transaction. Compensation paid to a loan originator organization directly by a consumer in a transaction is not prohibited by §1026.36(d)(1) simply because that compensation itself is a term of the transaction. Nonetheless, that compensation may not be based on any other term of the transaction or a proxy for any other term of the transaction. In addition, in a transaction where a loan originator organization is paid compensation directly by a consumer, compensation paid by the loan originator organization to individual loan originators is not prohibited by §1026.36(d)(1) simply because it is based on the amount of compensation paid directly by the consumer to the loan originator organization but the compensation to the individual loan originator may not be based on any other term of the transaction or proxy for any other term of the transaction.”

Joyce Wilkins Pollison, Esq.

Director/Legal and Regulatory Compliance

Executive Director / Lenders Compliance Group

Payment for Bank Referrals

QUESTION

One of our branches is talking with a local bank that wants to refer their mortgage loans to us. I know that, in the past, if the bank did a certain amount of work on the file up front they could be payed a fee. Is this still possible? And if so how do we stay compliant doing this?

ANSWER

It is still possible, but only on certain conditions.

First, payment of anything of value for referral of business is illegal under Section 8(a) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") 12 U.S.C. 2706, which reads:

“No person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.”

Second, it is also illegal under RESPA Section 8(b) to split fees with anyone for the rendering of a real estate settlement service:

“No person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed.”

Under Regulation X (12 CFR §1024.2(b)), the implementing regulation of RESPA, “settlement services” are defined in, to include, among other things, the following:

“(1) Origination of a federally related mortgage loan (including, but not limited to, the taking of loan applications, loan processing, and the underwriting and funding of such loans);

(2) Rendering of services by a mortgage broker (including counseling, taking of applications, obtaining verifications and appraisals, and other loan processing and origination services, and communicating with the borrower and lender);

(3) Provision of any services related to the origination, processing or funding of a federally related mortgage loan... “

However, there are certain exceptions to Sections 8(a) and (b). These are set forth in Section 8(c) of RESPA, which states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting [a list of payments and arrangements].” This list is quite lengthy and a significant body of case law and regulatory rulings have grown up over the years interpreting them. But the general concept of Section 8(c) can be summarized by stating that RESPA does not prohibit paying any person a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or services actually performed.

Two aspects of Section 8(c) have proven especially controversial, including:

• The meaning of the introductory phrase, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting.” The CFPB has interpreted this phrase as meaning that while Section 8(c) does not prohibit the payment of bona fide compensation for services actually performed, the phrase does not go so far as to grant a “safe harbor” for such a payment occurring in conjunction with a service for which RESPA does not allow compensation (such as a referral).  In the CFPB’s view, Section 8(c)(2) “clarifies” Section 8(a) and does not create any “safe harbor.” This issue was addressed in the recent and widely followed litigation case of PHH v. CFPB 881 F.3d 75 (January 31, 2018) in which the En Banc panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a three judge panel’ of that Circuit’s decision rejecting the CFPB’s interpretation.  
• The meaning of the term “bona fide.” Some, including the CFPB, argue that the term “bona fide” requires a fee to be reasonable; that is, to have a reasonable relationship to the value of the good, facility, or service for which it is paid. In that regard, one widely recognized technique for supporting the “bona fides” of a particular fee is to obtain a market survey showing that the fee is in line with market practices.

Thus, while payment of fees for mere referrals is prohibited, the Court of Appeals in PHH v. CFPB has said that lenders may compensate intermediaries, such as the bank in your question, for services actually rendered. 

How much work must an intermediary do to earn compensation? There is no bright line standard, but one of the best known and widely accepted tests was developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) in the 1990s. In two 1995 rulings and RESPA Statement of Policy 1999-1, HUD set forth the test it uses in determining whether a violation of Section 8 has occurred in such situations. These are probably the rules you are thinking of and they still apply. 

Under the test, HUD reviewed a loan transaction to determine how many of the following services were performed:

• (a) Taking information from the applicant and filling out the application. Filling out a prospective borrower’s worksheet may substitute for the act of filling out a mortgage loan application if, for reasons of efficiency, the lender prefers to have the actual application filled out in a central location.
• (b) Analyzing the applicant’s income and debt and prequalifying the borrower to determine the maximum amount the applicant can afford.
• (c) Educating the borrower in the home buying and financing process, advising the borrower about the different types of loan products available, and demonstrating how closing costs and monthly payments would vary under each product.
• (d) Collecting financial information (for example, tax returns, bank statements) and other related documents that are part of the application process.
• (e) Initiating or ordering verifications of employment (VOEs) and verifications of deposit (VODs).
• (f) Initiating or ordering requests for mortgage and other loan verifications.
• (g) Initiating or ordering appraisals.
• (h) Initiating or ordering inspections or engineering reports.
• (i) Providing required legal disclosures (Truth-in-Lending, Good Faith Estimate, others) to the applicant.
• (j) Assisting the applicant in understanding and clearing credit problems.
• (k) Maintaining regular contact with the applicant, real estate broker or salesperson, and lender, between application and closing to apprise them of the status of the application and to gather any additional information as needed.
• (l) Ordering legal documents.
• (m) Determining whether the secured property is located in a flood zone or ordering a flood determination.
• (n) Participating in the loan closing.

If the intermediary took the application (item a), performed at least five additional items on the list, and received a fee reasonably related to the market value of the services performed, HUD determined that no Section 8 violation had occurred.

Bottom line: What you are considering does appear to be legally permissible, provided that you and the bank comply with the requirements set forth above.

Michael R. Pfeifer

Director/Legal & Regulatory Compliance

Lenders Compliance Group

Prohibitions on Loan Originator Compensation

QUESTION 

What is the salient prohibition pertaining to loan originator compensation? 

ANSWER 

Regulation Z, the implementing regulation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), prohibits a creditor or any other person from paying, directly or indirectly, compensation to a mortgage broker or any other loan originator that is based on a mortgage transaction's terms or conditions - the only exception being the correlation of compensation to the amount of credit extended.

A loan originator's compensation can neither be increased nor decreased based on the loan terms or conditions.

Once the creditor offers to extend a loan with specified terms and conditions (i.e., rate and points), the amount of the originator's compensation for that transaction may not change, based on either an increase or a decrease in the loan cost or any other change in the loan terms. For instance, if a consumer requests a lower interest and the creditor accepts that rate, the creditor is not permitted to reduce the amount it pays to the loan originator based on that change in loan terms. Similarly, any reduction in origination points paid by the consumer must be a cost borne by the creditor.

The amount of credit extended is deemed not to be a transaction term or condition of the loan for purposes of the Regulation Z prohibition, provided that the compensation payments to loan originators are based on a fixed percentage of the amount of credit extended. Such compensation may be subject to a minimum or maximum dollar amount; however, the minimum or maximum amount may not vary with each credit transaction.

Creditors may use other compensation methods to provide adequate compensation for smaller loans, such as basing compensation on an hourly rate, or on the number of loans originated in a given time period.

[See 12 CFR 226, §§ 226.36(d)(1) and (d)(2)]

*Jonathan Foxx
President & Managing Director
Lenders Compliance Group