Kill mortgage broker deception
Part 3: A new era of mortgage market reform
By Jack Guttentag, Monday, July 28, 2008.(This is Part 3 of a three-part series. Read Part 1, "Why good faith estimate needs overhaul," and Part 2, "HUD aims to crack down on loan overcharges.")
This series of articles explains recent proposals by HUD to make the good faith estimate of fees and charges (GFE) more useful to borrowers. The first two articles explain how the revamped GFE would make it easier for borrowers to shop alternative loan providers (LPs), and would eliminate critical weaknesses of the current GFE that encourage opportunistic pricing. This article looks at proposed revisions in the GFE to make mortgage broker pricing more transparent.
Perhaps the most important proposed change in the GFE -- certainly the most controversial -- is the way it handles payments by lenders to mortgage brokers on higher-rate loans, referred to as yield spread premiums, or YSPs. It is alleged that YSPs are often excessive because they are embedded in the interest rate and borrowers are not always aware of them.
Consider the broker who receives wholesale price quotes on a $200,000 fixed-rate mortgage that includes the following possibilities: 6 percent at zero points; 5.75 percent at 2 points; and 6.25 percent at -1.5 points. On the last option, the lender pays 1.5 points, the YSP, to get the 6.25 percent rate.
At 6 percent, the wholesaler does not expect to receive any points, and will not pay any either. If the broker selects the 6 percent rate, he must tell the borrower what his fee is because the borrower will have to pay that fee out-of-pocket: "Charley, the price is 6 percent, zero points, and $3,000 for me."
It can and does happen this way, but most brokers find the 6.25 percent option with the 1.5 percent YSP more attractive. It allows the broker to say, "Charley, the price is 6.25 percent, with no points and no broker fee." The statement is not correct; there is a broker fee, but the borrower is not told what it is.
Why does it matter? Because in the 6 percent case, Charley might question whether $3,000 wasn't too much and whether $2,000 might not be more appropriate? In the 6.25 percent case, the broker avoids this question. The proof of the pudding is that in general, borrowers who pay brokers directly pay less than borrowers who pay through YSP.
Under recent proposals by the Federal Reserve Board, a lender would be prohibited from making a payment to a broker unless the borrower and broker had agreed in advance on the broker's total compensation. Before paying a YSP to a broker, the lender would have to check the agreement between the broker and the borrower, as well as the HUD-1 closing statement, to make sure that the total amount received by the broker did not exceed the amount agreed upon.
The Board's approach would work, but it is clumsy and places a nontrivial enforcement burden on the lender.
Under HUD's approach, any YSP must be included in the new GFE item, "Our Service Charge," which is total broker and lender fees exclusive of points. If the 6.25 percent rate with YSP was selected, Our Service Charge would include the $3,000 YSP and any other LP charges.
The next item on the form is "Your credit or charge for the specific interest rate chosen (points)." The GFE here shows whether the borrower is paying points or receiving them. In the case at hand, it would show the $3,000 as a credit for the 6.25 percent rate.
The third item on the GFE is "Your Adjusted Origination Charge," which consists of Our Service Charge plus any charge or less any credit for the rate selected. In the case at hand, the Our Service Charge of $3,000 less the $3,000 credit for the 6.25 percent rate leaves an adjusted origination charge of zero.
The borrower thus knows that the 6.25 percent rate generates a $3,000 credit to him, and he also knows that the credit is used to compensate the broker. Any inclination to negotiate the broker fee should be the same as in the 6 percent rate case, where the borrower knows he must pay the broker out of pocket.
This set of disclosure requirements will pose no problems for Upfront Mortgage Brokers (UMBs) and many other brokers who follow UMB principles. They practice full disclosure now. But the industry trade groups, which defend the ways in which most brokers operate, are moaning that the new GFE will mean the end of mortgage brokerage. Stuff and nonsense, it will merely mean the end of broker deception.
The writer is professor of finance emeritus at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Comments and questions can be left at www.mtgprofessor.com.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
Bookmarking Sites
Add A Comment
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Bruce Hahn on July 28, 2008 - 2:35pm.
American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance
Professor Guttentag did a good job of explaining an important benefit of the new GFE regs. It is a shame that mortgage brokerage and other organizations whose members serve home buyers and sellers continue to oppose clear disclosures and the elimination of other practices that fuel consumer their distrust of their members and their profession. Even more unfortunate, many of these same practices have contributed to the current housing meltdown, and will doubt contribute to the next one unless they are prohibited.
Submitted by M C on July 28, 2008 - 4:05pm.
AHGA,
You lack a clear understanding of how consumers shop for product and services. In addition, you have no idea what lead to the current housing meltdown. Finally, the Professor has done a horrific job in explaining the confusion consumers have with this inconsistent method of disclosure between all originators.
First point. Consumers, putting aside quality of service, shop based upon what their cost are, not what the retailer paid for the product. They need to know what their cost is and that is well laid out in the current GFE's, combined with TIL and product disclosures.
Second point. The housing meltdown was the result of Wall Street creating programs that were too loose in managing risk analysis. Wall Street relied upon home appreciation as a heavily weighted factor in risk to investor. They went beyond the traditional balance of credit, capacity and collateral; with the added push of Pay Option ARMs for people who did not have high net worth to control payment shock. Congress cheered the increased homeownership rates that resulted. , particularly when low income renters could finally purchase a home. The meltdown was a Wall Street and consumer greed and/or gambling issue that was exposed as soon as people buying homes based upon their ability to repay from income and not appreciation stopped buying; putting an end to appreciation salvation. To say the Mortgage Brokers, who did not created the programs (Wall Street did) nor underwrote (Lenders did) shows your lack of understanding of facts.
Third point. You must not be aware of the separate reports completed by Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve that prove that what HUD & Professor Guttentag profess for GFE's; that they should not be the same for all originators puts the consumer at a disastrous disadvantage by the bias against Mortgage Brokers. With the biased GFE's, the consumer is more likely to chose a higher cost loan from the originator providing a GFE due to the useless to consumer YSP being listed. Yes, useless and dangerous. What is the difference between originators that offer the same 6% 30 yr fixed rate with $3,000 closing cost? There is no difference to the consumer. The YSP nor the SRP of the originator has no bearing on the consumer's cost--they are the same.
I wish you would come out from underneath taking advantage of the consumer HUD & Professor Guttentag promote and spend some time getting educated on what a consumer needs to know when shopping for a home loan. Hint, it is the same regardless of the originator!!
Please quit abusing the consumer, housing industry and mortgage industry with statements based upon emotional headline making and not substantiated in fact. When you finally care enough to become educated, read the reports by the FTC & FRB. HUD has proven to be an incompetent & politically motivated entity willing to sacrifice the consumer.