Economic Perspectives

Providing information on small business, financial literacy, economics, and banking for main street and underserved communities

Posts Tagged ‘OCC’

Banking Regulator Calls for More Consumer Protections on Reverse Mortgages

Posted by econpers on June 8, 2009

From the media department of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).  The OCC is responsible for chartering, regulating, and supervising all national banks and the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.

Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan warned in a speech at the American Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference on June 8th that reverse mortgages pose significant compliance risks and said regulators should get out in front of this issue, before real problems develop, so that these loans are made “in a way that is prudent for both lenders and borrowers.”

John Dugan

John Dugan

 “While reverse mortgages can provide real benefits, they also have some of the same characteristics as the riskiest types of subprime mortgages – and that should set off alarm bells,” Comptroller Dugan said.  The experience with subprime mortgages “clearly demonstrates the link between compliance and safety and soundness.”

The Comptroller said the regulatory agencies should ensure that interagency guidance being worked on is sufficiently robust to ensure that consumers are adequately protected, and he said the OCC would examine national banks to ensure compliance with the guidance as well as relevant existing regulations.  But he said it may turn out that guidance alone is not enough to address the consumer protection issues surrounding this new product.

“In these circumstances, more definitive regulatory standards may need to be adopted, and the OCC is prepared to do that – even if the standards we advocate initially apply only to reverse mortgage lending by national banks,” he said in a speech to a regulatory compliance conference sponsored by the American Bankers Association.

Reverse mortgages provide a source of income or line of credit to elderly homeowners by allowing them to tap the equity in their home without having to sell or move out of the home.  The underwriting on these loans is nontraditional since no repayment is required until the homeowner dies, permanently moves out of the home, or fails to maintain the property or pay property taxes.  If the home is sold to repay the loan, the borrower is not responsible for any loan amount above the value of the home.  Any remaining equity above the amount due belongs to the borrower or the borrower’s heirs.

While some lenders offer their own proprietary products, 90 percent of all reverse mortgages are insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Federal Housing Administration, and known as “home equity conversion mortgages,” or “HECMs.”

Mr. Dugan said the ability of consumers to access their home equity through immediate and large lump sum payments can pose substantial risks.  For example, lenders may simultaneously and aggressively market investment, insurance, or annuity products or, worse, attempt to condition loan approval on the purchase of such products.  Likewise, with access to large lump sums upon closing, elderly borrowers can be particularly vulnerable to coercive sales of annuity and long term care insurance products that are expensive and may not be appropriate to their needs.

“Another risk is that reverse mortgage borrowers, because they have no immediate repayment obligations, may overlook substantial fees that are attached to the loan,” Mr. Dugan said.  “And consumers who spend their loan proceeds quickly or unwisely may end up short of the funds they need for home maintenance or property taxes, with disastrous consequences:  the failure to make those payments can result in foreclosure.”

The Comptroller also expressed concern about misleading marketing claims, especially if the product’s incentives and fees put more of a premium on making the loan than on ensuring it is appropriate for the borrower.

“Even when consumers are not subject to misleading or deceptive marketing, they still may have a hard time understanding the complex nature and costs associated with reverse mortgages,” he said.  “If a consumer doesn’t fully understand how much the loan will cost, how much can be borrowed, or all the circumstances under which the loan can become due, then the risk increases for a transaction that is not appropriate to the consumer’s needs.”

The OCC already has regulations in place to deal with deceptive marketing, the Comptroller said, and the OCC “will use this authority to require immediate correction of any potentially misleading marketing claims by a bank in connection with reverse mortgage products.”

The OCC will also use existing authority to ensure that national banks do not condition the availability of a reverse mortgage on the borrower’s purchase of certain nonbanking products, such as an annuity or life insurance.

Mr. Dugan said one area that deserves particular attention is whether to impose additional requirements with respect to escrows of taxes and insurance.  Nonpayment of taxes or insurance can trigger foreclosure.  However, the new Federal Reserve Board escrow requirements for “higher-priced” mortgages do not apply to reverse mortgages, and HUD does not require escrows to be established in connection with HECMs.

“Given the predominance of the HECM product in reverse mortgage lending, I think it would be a major step forward for HUD to issue guidelines or requirements addressing the escrow issue for HECMs, and I would like to begin a dialogue with them on the issue,” he said.  “Once they set the standards for escrows, we would ensure that they are followed by national banks for HECM products, and would ensure – by regulation, if necessary – that comparable standards apply in connection with proprietary reverse mortgages offered by national banks.”

In closing, Comptroller Dugan said that while much attention still needs to be focused on dealing with the economic downturn, regulators can’t afford to ignore consumer issues.  “We need to be on constant alert to emerging risks and vigilant in our regulatory compliance responsibilities,” he said.

Posted in Banking, Credit, Finance | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

The Bank Regulator’s View of the Mortgage Crisis and the Community Reinvestment Act

Posted by econpers on May 15, 2009

Barry Wides, Deputy Comptroller for Community Affairs for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) will discuss the erroneous connection that has been made between the mortgage crisis and the Community Renivestment Act (CRA) on the May 18 edition of Economic Perspectives, 5:30 p.m. – 6 p.m. on KAZI 88.7 FM.  Enclosed below are selected excerpts from a statement on the mortgage crisis and CRA given by Deputy Comptroller Wides at the public briefing of the United States Commission on Civil Rights on March 20, 2009.

…Let me start off by assuring you, unequivocally, that CRA is not the culprit behind the abuses in subprime mortgage lending nor the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace, as some have suggested. CRA lending and investment has been responsibly underwritten and conducted in a safe and sound manner. The CRA was enacted by Congress in 1977 to encourage banks and thrifts to increase their lending and services to low- and moderate-income persons and areas in their communities consistent with safe and sound banking.  It also requires the federal financial supervisory agencies to assess the record of each covered institution in helping to meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income individuals and neighborhoods.

Barry Wides

Barry Wides

The CRA applies only to banks and savings associations whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Affiliates of insured depositories that are not themselves insured depository institutions are not directly subject to the CRA, nor are credit unions or independent mortgage companies. ..

There has been much public discussion over the past several months concerning whether CRA may have contributed to the mortgage crisis. This discussion has focused on the connection between CRA-related lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers and what some allege to be a disproportionate representation in failing subprime loans.

The OCC and other Federal banking regulatory agencies have been looking at this question in some detail, and all four agencies have concluded that CRA was not responsible for the current mortgage crisis. 3 In analyzing independent studies and comprehensive home lending data sets, we have concluded that only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA.

CRA-related loans appear to perform comparable to or better than other types of subprime loans. For example, single-family CRA-related mortgages offered in conjunction with NeighborWorks organizations have performed on par with standard conventional mortgages.  Foreclosure rates within the NeighborWorks network were just 0.21 percent in the second quarter of 2008, compared to 4.26 percent of subprime loans and 0.61 percent for conventional conforming mortgages. Similar conclusions were reached in a study by the University of North Carolina’s Center for Community Capital, which indicates that high-cost subprime mortgage borrowers default at much higher rates than those who take out loans made for CRA purposes.  Overwhelmingly, CRA lending has been safe and sound.

The Federal Reserve Board (FRB) has reported extensively on these findings for all CRA loans. A FRB study of 2005 – 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported higher-priced loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas.6 The FRB also found that less than 2 percent of the higher-priced and CRA credit-eligible mortgage originations sold by independent mortgage companies in 2006 were purchased by CRA-covered institutions. FRB loan data analysis also found that 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods and, further, that more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas were made by independent non-bank institutions that are not covered by CRA.

OCC analysis of the lending of banks that we regulate also confirms that the vast majority of subprime loans were not originated by national banks supervised by the OCC. In 2006, subprime lending by national banks amounted roughly to 10 percent of the total of subprime mortgage originations by all lenders.8 Further, our analysis also shows that subprime and Alt-A loans originated by national banks defaulted at a lower rate than those originated by non-bank lenders.9 Our analysis compared the foreclosure start rates for loans originated between 2005 and 2007 that were placed in subprime and Alt-A securities. The loans originated by OCC-regulated institutions defaulted at roughly two-thirds the rate of comparable loans originated by non-bank lenders.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate my belief that CRA has made a positive contribution to community revitalization across the country and has generally encouraged sound community development lending, investment, and service initiatives by regulated banking organizations. Only a small percentage of higher priced loans were originated by CRA-regulated lenders to either lower-income borrowers or in neighborhoods in the banks’ CRA assessment areas. Similarly, banks purchased only a small percentage of higher-priced, CRA-eligible loans originated by independent mortgage companies. Finally, the performance of higher-cost loans originated by national banks is markedly better than loans originated by non-bank institutions…

For the full text of the statement click here.

Posted in Banking, Community Development, Credit, Economy, Housing | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

OCC Consumer Tips for Avoiding Mortgage Modification Scams and Foreclosure Rescue Scams

Posted by econpers on April 21, 2009

Scams that promise to “rescue” you from foreclosure are popping up at an alarming rate nationwide, and you need to protect yourself and your home.

If you’re falling behind on your mortgage, others may know it, too — including con artists and scam artists. They know that people in these situations are vulnerable and often desperate. Potential victims are easy to find: mortgage lenders publish notices before foreclosing on homes. Private firms frequently compile and sell lists of these foreclosed properties and distressed borrowers. After reading these notices, con artists approach their targets in person, by mail, over the telephone, or by e-mail. They often advertise their services on television, radio, or the Web, and in newspapers, describing themselves as “foreclosure consultants” or “mortgage consultants,” offering “foreclosure prevention” or “foreclosure rescue” services. And they are only too happy to take advantage of homeowners who want to save their homes.

If someone offers to negotiate a loan modification for you or to stop or delay foreclosure for a fee, carefully check his or her credentials, reputation, and experience, watch out for warning signs of a scam, and always maintain personal contact with your lender and mortgage servicer. Your mortgage lender can help you find real options to avoid foreclosure. It is important to contact your mortgage lender early to preserve all your options. There are legitimate consumer financial counseling agencies that can help you work with your lender.

This Consumer Advisory, issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), describes common scams, suggests ways to protect yourself, provides information on U.S. government loan programs and counseling resources, and lists 10 warning signs of a mortgage modification scam.  To read the complete consumer advisory issued by the OCC click here.

Posted in Credit, Finance | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »