Skip to main content

Handle ARM Adjustments with Care

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Lending & Loan Review.

By William J. Showalter, CRCM, CRP, Senior Consultant

Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM) have not been much of an issue for many banks and thrifts in recent years since fixed rates have been so low. But they are still an important tool for serving those customers who cannot meet the secondary market qualifications applied to most fixed-rate loans. And, many institutions have a portfolio of existing ARM loans that they service. One potential complication for some lenders is the impending discontinuance of the LIBOR index. This requires lenders to find another comparable index for their ARMs.

ARMs were in the spotlight over 10 years ago because of problems in the subprime market. Many subprime products have variable interest rates, which shift the interest rate risk from lender to borrower. Besides the issues raised then over putting borrowers into inappropriate products, there also are concerns over errors in ARM rate changes.

Do an internet search for “ARM errors” or similar terms and you will come up with numerous firms offering loan audit and information services to borrowers. These firms tell borrowers that their companies can correct ARM errors, bring loans into compliance, and get the borrower a mortgage refund.

Background on adjustable-rate mortgages

The initial furor over these mistakes arose over a report on adjustable-rate mortgage adjustment errors prepared by a former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation employee in 1989. His assertions sent a tremor through the mortgage industry. The report concluded that miscalculations in periodic adjustments to rates on ARM instruments resulted in significant overcharges. He found ARM adjustment errors in about 50 percent of the loans he sampled. From these results, he estimated the potential overcharges to be up to $15 billion for ARMs nationwide at the time. This figure has been estimated as high as $50-60 billion in recent years.

The controversy was further stoked by a study from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released in September 1991 which found between 20 and 25 percent of the ARM loans at the time contained interest rate errors. Such errors occurred when the related mortgage servicer selected the incorrect index date, used an incorrect margin, or ignored interest rate change caps.

The damaging studies kept coming. In July 1994, Consumer Loan Advocates, a non-profit mortgage auditing firm announced that as many as 18 percent of ARMs had errors costing the borrower more than $5,000 in interest overcharges. And, another government study in December 1995 concluded that 50 to 60 percent of all ARMs contained an error regarding the variable interest rate charged to the homeowner. The study estimated the total amount of interest overcharged to borrowers was in excess of $8 billion. Inadequate computer programs, incorrect completion of documents, and calculation errors were cited as the major causes of interest rate overcharges.

Even though no other government studies have been conducted into ARM interest overcharges to date, the potential issue continues to simmer below the surface and lenders need to be vigilant so that it does not erupt into a veritable super volcano of enforcement actions and lawsuits.

Types of errors

The kinds of errors lenders are said to make in implementing ARM rate and payment adjustments run the gamut from calculation mistakes to carelessness, including:

  • Mistakes in original loan set up/data input
  • Miscalculation of payment amount
  • Improper allocation of payments between interest and principal (amortization)
  • Use of the wrong index
  • Selection of incorrect index value
  • Application of incorrect interest rate caps
  • Failure to adjust in some years
  • Use of incorrect margins
  • Improper rounding methods (e.g., rounding up instead of rounding to the nearest 1/8th of 1 percent)
  • Math mistakes causing an incorrect rate
  • Use of incorrect loan balance

Banking regulators point out that these errors may be considered breaches of contract. These errors could then expose the financial institution to legal action.

Extent of errors

Since ARMs involve changing index values periodically and oftentimes complex computer calculations, they seem to attract human and software errors. Mortgage audit firms point out that leading publications such as The Wall Street Journal, MONEY, Forbes, and Newsweek have warned borrowers about miscalculations occurring in up to 50 percent of ARMs.

  • The firms get borrowers’ attention by pointing to figures of lender overcharges and borrower refunds like these:
  • Average borrower refund of over $1,500
  • 21 percent of refunds ranging from $3,500 to $10,000
  • 13 percent of errors exceeding $10,000

Reasons for errors

The calculation of ARM rate changes is a complex process and errors can occur in a variety of ways. Add to this the fact that many lenders offer, and servicers support, a variety of ARM products with different rate adjustment intervals, indices, margins, and other terms. Another potential complicating factor is the widespread practice of transferring loan servicing. This presents another opportunity for human mistakes and software mismatches to cause errors.

Some of the mortgage audit firms assert that adjustable-rate mortgage rate and payment adjustment errors have been linked to:

  • Lack of training, supervision, and experience of loan servicing personnel
  • Simple human error
  • Computer data entry or software errors
  • Clerical or calculation errors
  • Fraud
  • Sale or transfer of the loan to a different company
  • Rider, handwritten changes, or other irregularities in the note
  • Very complex calculations, use of an unusual index, or interest rate
  • Dissolution or merger of the original loan institution

How to avoid these problems

The federal banking supervisors began encouraging financial institutions back in 1991 to perform reviews of their adjustable-rate loan systems. This was to ensure that interest rate information is correctly ascertained and administered, and that rates are adjusted properly.

Banks and thrifts should have effective internal controls and procedures in place to ensure that all adjustments are made according to the terms of the underlying contracts and that complete, timely, and accurate adjustment notices are provided to borrowers. Also, a system for the ongoing testing of adjustments should be in place to ensure that adjustments continue to be made correctly.

A critical component of any successful loan servicing program, including correctly implementing rate and payment adjustments, is a thorough training regime for lending personnel involved in the process. Those involved must be given the appropriate tools – including knowledge – to succeed in their jobs.

Any review of adjustable-rate mortgage adjustments should include documentation indicating the basis for interest rate adjustments made to a lender’s adjustable-rate mortgage loans, showing whether changes have been made consistent with the underlying contracts.

If a lender finds that it has made errors in the adjustments for interest rates which have resulted in interest overcharges on ARMs, the supervisory agencies expect that you will have in place a system to correct the overcharges and properly credit the borrower’s account for any interest overcharges. In general, undercharges cannot be collected from borrowers.

Learn more about this topic and how Young & Associates, Inc. can assist your institution. Contact Bill Showalter at wshowalter@younginc.com or 330.422.3473 today.

Off-Site Reviews, Virtual/Teleconference Training, and Management Consulting Support

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Information Technology, Lending & Loan Review, Management & Planning.

Young & Associates, Inc. remains committed to keeping our employees, clients, and partners safe and healthy during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this difficult and unprecedented time, we have continued to successfully leverage technology to fulfill our commitments to our clients and partners through secure remote access for reviews, virtual/teleconference training, and other management consulting support.

Young & Associates’ commitment to virtual/teleconference training and remote access reviews date back well over five years. We see this ability as a win-win for everyone – the review and training get completed in a timely manner and the bank avoids paying any travel expenses. Concerned about security, please be assured that we use the latest secure technology.

We remain committed to helping our clients with all areas of their operations through off-site reviews and providing the most current regulatory updates through our virtual/teleconferencing training.

Contact one of our consultants today for more information about our off-site reviews or virtual/teleconferencing training:

Bill Elliott, Director of Compliance Education:
bille@younginc.com or 330.422.3450

Karen Clower, Director of Compliance:
kclower@younginc.com or 330.422.3444

Martina Dowidchuk, Director of Management Services:
mdowidchuk@younginc.com or 330.422.3449

Bob Viering, Director of Lending:
bviering@younginc.com or 330.422.3476

Kyle Curtis, Director of Lending Services:
kcurtis@younginc.com or 330.422.3445

Aaron Lewis, Director of Lending Education:
alewis@younginc.com or 330.422.3466

Dave Reno, Director – Lending and Business Development:
dreno@younginc.com or 330.422.3455

Ollie Sutherin, Manager of Secondary Market QC Services:
osutherin@younginc.com or 330.422.3453

Jeanette McKeever, Director of Internal Audit:
jmckeever@younginc.com or 330.422.3468

Mike Detrow: Director of Information Technology Audit/Information Technology:
mdetrow@younginc.com or 330.422.3447

Young & Associates, Inc.’s consultants provide a level of expertise gathered over 42 years. In our consulting engagements, we closely monitor the regulatory environment and best practices in the industry, develop customized solutions for our clients’ needs, and prepare detailed and timely audit reports to ease implementation moving forward. Our consultants have backgrounds and experience in virtually all areas of the financial services industry.. Many of our consultants and trainers have come to the company directly from positions in financial institutions or regulatory agencies where they worked to resolve many of the issues that our clients face daily.

We look forward to working with you as you work to obtain your goals in 2021 and beyond.

Assessing your Compliance Training

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By Bill Elliott, CRCM, Director of Compliance Education

Last fall, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) updated their Regulatory Agenda for the next few months. As has been the reality for a while, there does not seem to be any particular rush to accomplish many final rules. The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCP Act) was signed into law in May 2018. In that law, there are a number of required changes that should be fairly easy to implement – if the CFPB would just do so. But in the short term, there appears little likelihood that the changes dictated by the law (or many other changes) will be placed into regulation. But change is still in our future – it is just a question of the timing.

Part of the problem is the regulatory process. Although all banks are not subject to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, it is an excellent example. The “new version” of Regulation C was published as a final rule, effective January 2018. Before the 2018 date, the CFPB changed the regulation. With the passage of the EFRRCP Act, many of the new required fields were eliminated for smaller reporters. Although a fairly simple series of changes were necessary, many months passed before the regulation was updated (October 2019). And when those changes were made final, there were still some outstanding issues in HMDA that needed to be addressed, and remain open at this writing. So even with all the changes, it is not “final” yet. The latest Small Entity Guide for HMDA (which will have to be modified again) is Version 4.

Importance of compliance training

This complicates the life of any bank, regardless of size. When the regulatory process is poor and disjointed, it makes training and implementation more difficult. But the reality is that regardless of how confusing the regulatory process is, banks still have to comply.

Training is a necessary expense, as a failure to train, especially when things are in flux, opens the bank to regulatory scrutiny and/or fines for non-compliance. And keeping your policies and procedures current with the latest changes is always a challenge.

Banks should assess how information is disseminated throughout the bank as these changes occur to assure that training dollars are spent effectively. And the time to assess is now, while things are relatively “calm.” Many banks have delegated training to electronic or web-based systems, and there are many good choices available. But, because of the nature of this type of training, they focus on the facts and requirements, but usually do not include information on what to expect of your employees, or the implementation strategies of your bank. Be wary of buying a training system and then assuming all your training needs are met.

How we can help with your compliance training program

We do not market electronic or web-based systems. But Young & Associates, Inc. offers a wide variety of personalized training opportunities, including:

  • Live seminars with some of our state association partners
  • Live in-bank training
  • Conference calls
  • Private webinars
  • Virtual Compliance Consultant program, which includes a monthly telephone call that can be used for compliance support and/or training sessions as well as policy support, and any other personalized training that you may need

In this period of relative quiet, take this time to assess your training methods and your training needs for the future. Eventually the regulators will begin to issue more regulation, and Young & Associates, Inc. stands ready to assist. To discuss how we can help, please contact Karen Clower at 330.422.3444 or kclower@younginc.com.

Liquidity Risk Management

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Management & Planning.

By Martina Dowidchuk, Director of Management Services and Senior Consultant

Does your liquidity management meet the standards of increased regulatory scrutiny? Regulators are gradually reviewing what they once deemed acceptable more rigidly, and financial institutions need to be prepared to show that their liquidity risk oversight complies with both supervisory guidance and sound industry practices.

Community banks may not view liquidity risk as an immediate concern given the abundance of liquidity in the banking industry today. However, the history shows that liquidity reserves can change quickly and the changes may occur outside of management’s control. A bank’s liquidity position may be adequate under certain operating environments, yet be insufficient under adverse environments. Adequate liquidity governance is considered as important as the bank’s liquidity position. While the sophistication of the liquidity measurement tools varies with the bank’s complexity and risk profiles, all institutions are expected to have a formal liquidity policy and contingency funding plan that are supported by liquidity cash flow forecast, projected liquidity position analysis, stress testing, and dynamic liquidity metrics customized to match the bank’s balance sheets.

Some of the common liquidity risk management pitfalls found during annual independent reviews include:

Cash Flow Plan:

  • Lack of projected cash flow analysis
  • Inconsistencies between liquidity cash flow assumptions and the strategic plan/budget
  • Lack of documentation supporting liquidity plan assumptions
  • Overdependence on outdated, static liquidity ratios and lack of forward-looking metrics
  • Lack of back-testing of the model

Stress Scenarios:

  • Stress-testing of projected cash flows not performed
  • Stress tests focusing on a single stress event rather than a combination of stress factors
  • Stress tests lacking the assessment of a liquidity crisis impact on contingent funding sources
  • Insufficient severity of stress tests

Contingency Funding Plan Document:

  • Contingency funding plan failing to address certain key components, such as the identification of early warning indicators, alternative funding sources, crisis management team, and action plan details
  • Lack of metrics defined to assess the adequacy of primary and contingent funding sources in the baseline and stressed scenarios

Liquidity Policy:

  • Inadequate risk limits or lack of acceptable levels of funding concentrations defined in the liquidity policy
  • Liquidity policy failing to address responsibilities for maintenance of the cash flow model, model documentation, periodic assumption review, and model validation

Management Oversight:

  • ALCO discussions related to liquidity management not containing sufficient detail and not reflected appropriately in the ALCO meeting minutes
  • Lack of periodic testing of the stand-by funding lines
  • Lack of liquidity model assumption review or documentation of such review
  • Lack of periodic independent reviews of the liquidity risk management process

If you want an independent review of your existing liquidity program and a model validation, or need assistance developing a contingency funding plan, liquidity cash flow plan, and liquidity stress testing, please contact me at 330.422.3449 or mdowidchuk@younginc.com. Young & Associates, Inc. offers an array of liquidity products and services that can help you to ensure compliance with the latest regulatory expectations.

Banks as Federal Contractors, A Brief History

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Management & Planning.

By: Mike Lehr, HR Consultant

Unless legal counsel says otherwise, if FDIC covers a bank’s deposits, it’s best to assume it’s a federal contractor. That not only means the bank likely needs an affirmative action plan if it issues fifty or more different W2s in a year, but the federal government holds the bank to higher employment standards.

Still, as human resources professionals know, bank CEOs, presidents, and other senior executives often want to know, “What law says so?” After all, when we think of a “federal contractor,” we often think huge employers with thousands of employees.

For banks with only a few hundred (if that) employees, this all seems very unnecessary. Yet, the short answer is that a reinterpretation of existing law after the 2008 financial crisis made most banks federal contractors if they obtained federal deposit insurance.

Reviewing the way our government works and the history of banks as federal contractors can clarify this answer. After all, the law is not clear. It hasn’t changed much in over twenty years.

This review begins by reminding others that federal laws change in three main ways:

    1. Congress passes or revises laws.
    2. Executive branch reinterprets existing laws.
    3. Courts rule on and clarify regulations causing disagreements among parties.

While Congress neither passed nor revised any law specifically stating banks are federal contractors, the Department of Labor (DOL) reinterpreted the law. Until the 2008 financial crisis, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), an agency of the DOL, mainly interpreted the law to say FDIC made banks contractors. The DOL, its boss so to speak, never accepted this however.

So, until 2008, unless a bank clearly acted as “an issuing and paying agent for U.S. savings bonds and notes” or “a federal fund depository,” in a substantial manner, the DOL likely didn’t consider it a federal contractor.

Until 2008, FDIC payouts to banks were rare, almost non-existent. This crisis though saw many sizeable payouts. As a result, the DOL accepted OFCCP’s interpretation of the law. The crisis forced the DOL to see FDIC coverage as doing business with the federal government. So now, by its “boss” agreeing, the OFCCP has more authority to enforce its regulations such as affirmative action plans on banks.

Again, a reinterpretation of existing law after the 2008 financial crisis increased dramatically the likelihood that a bank is a federal contractor. This brief history has helped human resources professionals answer questions related to “what law says so?”

For more guidance and support on complying as a federal contractor, you can reach Mike Lehr at mlehr@younginc.com. Mike Lehr is not an attorney. As such, the content in this article should not be construed as providing legal advice. For specific decisions on compliance with OFCCP regulations, readers should consult with their legal counsel.

Private Flood Insurance Update

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By: Bill Elliott, CRCM, Senior Consultant and Manager of Compliance

As you are no doubt aware, the issue of flood insurance has been unsettled for the last 18 months, and the formal FEMA flood program is only approved until the fall. But, after a long wait, the regulators have published additional regulation for private flood insurance – which does not rely on Congress to do anything, and makes the presence or absence of the FEMA program less problematic for lenders.

Background

The Biggert-Waters Act (2012) amended federal flood insurance legislation to require the agencies to issue a rule directing regulated lending institutions to accept “private flood insurance,” as defined by the act. In response to subsequent legislation and comments received regarding the private flood insurance provisions of the first proposed rule (2013), and the second proposed rule (November 2016), all prudential regulatory agencies finally issued the rule, effective July 1, 2019.

It remains to be seen how effective and efficient this will be, as it is a “work in process.” But some have told me that some of their customers have found lower flood insurance rates privately (meaning these policies may become more popular). Others have told me that they have had customers declined for private flood insurance based on the riskiness of the property location.

Summary of the Rule

The rule requires regulated lending institutions to accept “private flood insurance” defined in accordance with the Biggert-Waters Act. There are essentially three categories of private flood insurance.

Category One – Private Flood Insurance with “Compliance Aid” Language

If the following language appears on the flood policy, the lender may accept the policy without any further review:
“This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

Although it remains to be seen how well this will work, we hope that most insurance companies will include this language, which will make it quite easy for lenders, as no additional effort will be required.

Category Two – Private Flood Insurance without “Compliance Aid” Language

The rule permits regulated lending institutions to exercise discretion to accept flood insurance policies issued by private insurers that do not meet the statutory and regulatory definition of private flood insurance. The conditions for acceptance include a requirement that the policy must provide sufficient protection of a designated loan, consistent with general safety and soundness principles, and the regulated lending institution must document its conclusion regarding sufficiency of the protection of the loan in writing.

The difficulty for lenders will be to determine whether these policies really meet these (and other) requirements. And although the regulation says “discretionary,” it does not appear that the regulators will just allow lenders to summarily reject these policies.

Category Three – Mutual Aid Societies

The agencies will now allow the acceptance of plans providing flood coverage issued by mutual aid societies. The rule defines “mutual aid society” as an organization:
(1) whose members share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond;
(2) that covers losses caused by damage to members’ property pursuant to an agreement, including damage caused by flooding, in accordance with this common bond; and
(3) that has a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members’ property caused by flooding.

A regulated lending institution may accept a plan issued by a mutual aid society, as defined above, if the regulated lending institution’s primary federal supervisory agency has determined that such plans qualify as flood insurance for purposes of the act.

Requirement to Purchase Flood Insurance

There is nothing in the rule that changes the amounts of insurance required, or anything else. This simply allows more options and hopefully, over time, will make everyone’s life – lenders and borrowers – easier.

If you need any assistance in this area, especially private flood policies without the “compliance aid” language, please give us a call at 330.422.3450 or send an email to bille@younginc.com. We are always happy to help.

Avoid Getting Swept Away in the Flood of Enforcement Actions

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By: William J. Showalter, CRCM, CRP, Senior Consultant

We seem to be in a bit of a lull in flood insurance rule enforcement by the financial institution regulators. There were only 15 enforcement actions with civil money penalties (CMP) totaling $523,961 in 2018. So far this year, we have had only two such enforcement actions, with total CMPs of $10,550. But, we probably should not expect this trend to continue, especially with all the flooding events we have seen recently, including our unfortunate neighbors along the Missouri River. These events tend to get the attention of Congress and the supervisory agencies.

Keep in mind that enforcement of many rules, including those involving flood insurance, seem to run in cycles. After another apparent lull in flood insurance enforcement actions a couple years ago, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) issued an Order for a Civil Money Penalty in late May 2017 against SunTrust Bank for $1,501,000 to enforce requirements of the regulations implementing the National Flood Insurance Act. This is thought to be the largest CMP for flood insurance shortcomings. Coupled with 11 other much smaller enforcement actions by the FRB, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the total civil money penalties assessed for flood insurance rule violations by mid-year 2017 totaled nearly $1.8 million – and by the end of that year, we had seen 29 enforcement actions with a total of nearly $2.8 million in CMPs.

Background
The original National Flood Insurance Act was passed in 1968, and established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1974 (FDPA) was enacted to strengthen the NFIP by involving lending institutions in the insurance process.

The NFIP was developed as a way to reduce federal expenditures related to disasters caused by flooding. The program consists of floodplain management plans that affected communities must implement and a flood insurance program to protect properties in flood hazard areas. The intent of the NFIP is to reduce federal outlays for disaster assistance by making those who choose to develop properties in flood-prone areas bear some cost to protect against the flood risks involved, rather than allowing them to rely solely on federal aid.

Part of the NFIP is a system of requirements and restrictions on federal assistance of all kinds to flood-prone areas. This assistance ranges from direct federal lending to loan guarantees, to insurance for deposit accounts. The latter is the connection for many mortgage lenders with the NFIP.

The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (NFIRA) comprehensively revised the two federal flood statutes – the NFIA and FDPA – and required federal supervisory agencies to revise their flood insurance regulations. The objective of the changes was to increase compliance with flood insurance requirements and participation in the NFIP, and to decrease the financial burden on the federal government, taxpayers, and flood victims.

The NFIRA authorizes the regulators to impose civil money penalties when a pattern or practice of violations under the NFIA is found. The act requires that civil money penalties be imposed of up to $350 for each violation in such cases. The civil money penalty cap was increased significantly by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, enacted July 6, 2012. The former $350 per violation maximum was raised to $2,000 per violation. Lenders should remember that there can be multiple violations for each covered loan.

Consent Orders
The regulators charged that the financial institutions targeted by the 15 enforcement actions last year were engaged in patterns or practices of violations of various provisions of the flood insurance regulations. Most of the orders give us at least some picture of the violations found by regulatory personnel. These violations of flood insurance rules include failures to:

  • Provide notice about availability of and requirement for flood insurance
  • Provide timely notice about availability of and requirement for flood insurance
  • Require flood insurance coverage
  • Require adequate flood insurance coverage
  • Maintain flood insurance (allowing it to lapse)
  • Escrow premiums (when other property costs are escrowed)
  • Comply with force placement requirements
  • Provide notice regarding lapse and force-placed coverage
  • Provide timely notice regarding lapse and force-placed coverage
  • Obtain force-placed coverage

Avoiding Problems
What can you do to keep your bank or thrift off the ever-growing list of financial institutions being hit with flood insurance enforcement actions? One important way is to establish an effective flood insurance compliance program and make sure that lending staff follows it. Hold them accountable for failures.

At a minimum, your flood insurance compliance program should:

  • Ensure that there is an effective process in place for determining the flood hazard status for improved real property or mobile homes securing any loans, both consumer and commercial, whether the process be one of in-house readings of up-to-date flood maps or outsourced determinations by a professional firm that guarantees its results.
  • Ensure that your institution has performed appropriate due diligence in selecting its flood hazard determination vendor and monitors its performance, and that the vendor guarantees its results and uses the current Special Flood Hazard Determination Forms (SFHDF) to document its determinations.
  • Order or perform flood determinations early in the loan process. This can be done soon after the lender decides to approve the loan.
    Ensure that loan files contain complete and current SFHDF and acknowledged customer flood notices, where applicable.
  • Ensure that collateral properties are insured in the proper amount before loan closing, including appropriate coverage for any senior mortgagees.
  • Remain current on flood map and hazard determination changes, and stay insured throughout the life of the loan.
  • Ensure that coverage is maintained for subsequent financings (increase, extension, renewal, refinancing) of the subject properties.
  • Train all affected staff in their responsibilities under the bank’s flood insurance compliance program, assign appropriate accountability, and enforce staff responsibilities.

This last point is especially important. Training is the foundation for implementing and maintaining a strong flood program. Ensure that all appropriate staff is trained in the requirements of the flood insurance laws and rules that impact their jobs and provide them with refreshers periodically.

Establishing and maintaining a strong flood insurance compliance program can help your bank or thrift stay afloat during any flood of enforcement actions. For more information on this article and/or how Young & Associates, Inc. can assist you in this area, contact Bill Showalter at 330.678.0524 or wshowalter@younginc.com.

The CFPB in the Future

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By: Bill Elliott, CRCM, Senior Consultant and Manager of Compliance 

With the change in management of the CFPB, we are seeing changes in how they operate. When they published their Regulatory Agenda for Fall 2017 (late as usual – it appeared in January 2018), they restated what Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act specified as the objectives of the Bureau, including:

  • Providing consumers with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions
  • Protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination
  • Addressing outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations
  • Enforcing federal consumer financial law consistently in order to promote fair competition, without regard to the status of a covered person as a depository institution
  • Promoting the transparent and efficient operation of markets for consumer financial products and services to facilitate access and innovation

They stated that their work in pursuit of those objectives can be grouped into three main categories:

  1. Implementating statutory directives
  2. Other efforts to address market failures, facilitate fair competition among financial services providers, and improve consumer understanding
  3. Modernizing, clarifying, and streamlining consumer financial regulations to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens

Implementing Statutory Directives

In this area, the CFPB is continuing efforts to facilitate implementation of critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act. They listed three efforts under way. They include:

  • Regulation C (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act)
  • Mortgage servicing changes
  • Continuing to improve the TRID portion of Regulation Z

The CFPB also listed other projects that are “in the works,” but probably nowhere near completion.

Other Efforts To Address Market Failures, Facilitate Fair Competition among Financial Services Providers, and Improve Consumer Understanding

In this area, the CFPB said they were considering rules, such as:

  • Payday loans, auto title loans, and other similar credit products
  • Debt collection
  • Overdraft programs on checking accounts
  • Prepaid financial products
  • Modernizing, streamlining, and clarifying consumer financial regulations

Many of the regulations are approaching 50 years old and are out of date with the current world. For instance, Regulation B allows you to turn down a customer for not having a land line phone in the home. That was fine in the 1970s, but probably not relevant now. Updating this and many other regulations is overdue, including looking at the effectiveness of some of the more recent changes, which they say they will be doing.

Conclusion

We will have to wait and see what happens. As with all bureaucracies, and based on their past performance, changes are likely to appear slowly. In general, it appears that “new regulations” may slow down a bit, giving us in the industry a chance to catch up.

Young & Associates, Inc. offers a wide variety of compliance services to help your bank satisfy these compliance requirements. If we can help you “catch up” or improve your response to any of the regulations, we stand ready to assist. Please contact Karen Clower, Compliance Operations Manager, at kclower@younginc.com or 330.422.3444 and she will be happy to discuss our services with you.

A Look to the Future

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Information Technology, Lending & Loan Review, Management & Planning, Uncategorized.

By: Jerry Sutherin, President & CEO, Young & Associates, Inc.

On January 31, 2018, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to purchase Young & Associates, Inc. from Mr. Gary Young, the company’s founder and current Chairman. Nearly 40 years ago, Gary created this organization with a vision of providing community banks with consulting services that were typically cost-prohibitive to perform internally. Since its inception in 1978, Young & Associates has evolved from a small start-up organization offering select outsourcing and educational services to one of the premier bank consulting firms with clients nationwide and overseas. We now offer consulting, education, and outsourcing services for nearly every aspect of banking.

From the outset of our acquisition discussions, Gary and I agreed that the greatest asset of the company is its employees. Over the years, not only has Gary developed unique servicing platforms for the industry but more importantly, he has assembled an employee base that is second to none. These employees provide a level of expertise and service to our clients that remains unparalleled in the community banking industry.

To quote Gary, “I founded Young & Associates with the goal of assisting community banks while maintaining a family atmosphere that valued and respected the people that I work with.” Going forward, it is my primary objective to carry on this legacy that Gary has created. I look forward to making this a seamless transition building on the solid foundation that Gary has built over the years. With the work of our employees and support of our clients, there is no doubt that Gary’s legacy will continue for years to come.

Although the ownership of Young & Associates, Inc. has changed, the company’s name, mission, personnel, quality of service, and structure will not change in any way. Gary now serves as Chairman of the Board and will remain actively involved with the business through January 2019, providing the same high-quality service while also assisting me with the transition. In addition to ensuring a smooth internal transition, Gary and I remain focused on making sure that the relationship with our clients remains strong. Existing and new clients are encouraged to contact me, Gary, or any of our consultants to discuss this transition and how we might be able to earn your business.

Compliance Outlook: 2018

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By: Bill Elliott, CRCM, Manager of Compliance Services

For those of us who are news junkies, the current environment is interesting. Unfortunately, the environment is also so toxic that it is difficult to determine what actually may or may not happen during 2018.

We do know that some items that are being considered. For instance, bills are pending regarding issues like HMDA, flood, qualified mortgages, and call reports for smaller institutions. It remains to be seen whether any of these bills (or any of the other bills pending) actually will become law, or whether Congress will continue the infighting that has resulted in a haphazard and uncertain regulatory and law environment.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
Based on the questions we have received at Young and Associates, Inc., it would appear that that the 2018 HMDA implementation (so far) is going fairly well. However, we have received numerous questions regarding issues that were not addressed directly in the “HMDA Instructions.” This is not new or surprising, as not every situation can be covered in a rule as massive as HMDA.

For HMDA, as with every other new/updated regulation, preparation was the key. The regulatory world is getting so complicated that it is necessary for banks to really consider all processes and procedures to avoid either duplication of work or unnecessary work.

Customer Due Diligence
Speaking of duplication and unnecessary work, one of the items that must be addressed quickly is the new Customer Due Diligence rule under the Bank Secrecy Act, effective May 11, 2018. While many regulations can be handled by only one division of the bank, this regulation will impact almost everyone, as it requires updates regarding the ownership of a business every time a new account is opened. Accounts can be loans, deposits, safe deposit boxes, or any other kind of account that you may offer. It will require the customer to inform you of all individuals who own at least 25% of the business, as well as indicating a control person for the business.

For new loans, this will most likely be an inconvenience, although driver’s licenses and/or other methods of identification will be required every time a new commercial loan to a business with at least one 25% or more owner (LLC, partnership, corporation, etc.) is opened.

For deposits or other account types, this may mean what is now a 30-minute procedure to open a new account will become a multi-day ordeal, as the person opening the account may well not be the only owner, and certainly will not have identification information for all 25% owners and control persons with them (including identification). The only saving grace is that every financial institution will have to deal with this issue, so there will be no competitive advantage or disadvantage. With a May time limit, if your institution has not started the implementation process, time is running short.

Consumer Protection
As you well know, there has been a change in the administration of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). With Mr. Cordray’s recent exit from the agency, it is likely that’s the CFPB will consider new approaches to the issue of consumer protection. To this end, the CFPB has announced steps to request information from the public and review how things are done, how they actually impact or help the consumer, and how they impact and create costs for the industry.

Some of the requests will be more useful than others. The first request to be issued by the CFPB will seek public comment on Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs), which are issued during an enforcement investigation. Comments received in response to this RFI and all others that follow will help the Bureau evaluate the existing framework and determine whether any changes are warranted. Make sure you are part of the process by commenting or otherwise making your voice heard.

Conclusion
If we can offer you training, implementation assistance, or any other compliance related service, please contact Karen Clower, Compliance Operations Manager, at kclower@younginc.com or 330.422.3444.

CFPB Amends HMDA Rule

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By: William J. Showalter, CRCM, CRP; Senior Consultant

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule making several technical corrections and clarifications to the expanded data collection under Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The regulation is also being amended to temporarily raise the threshold at which banks are required to report data on home equity lines of credit (HELOC).

These amendments take effect on January 1, 2018, along with compliance for most other provisions of the newly expanded Regulation C.

Background
Since the mid-1970s, HMDA has provided the public and public officials with information about mortgage lending activity within communities by requiring financial institutions to collect, report, and disclose certain data about their mortgage activities. The Dodd-Frank Act amended HMDA, transferring rule-writing authority to the CFPB and expanding the scope of information that must be collected, reported, and disclosed under HMDA, among other changes.

In October 2015, the CFPB issued the 2015 HMDA Final Rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA. The 2015 HMDA Final Rule modified the types of institutions and transactions subject to Regulation C, the types of data that institutions are required to collect, and the processes for reporting and disclosing the required data. In addition, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule established transactional thresholds that determine whether financial institutions are required to collect data on open-end lines of credit or closed-end mortgage loans.

The CFPB has identified a number of areas in which implementation of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule could be facilitated through clarifications, technical corrections, or minor changes. In April 2017, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make certain amendments to Regulation C to address those areas. In addition, since issuing the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the agency has heard concerns that the open-end threshold at 100 transactions is too low. In July 2017,  the CFPB published a proposal to address the threshold for reporting open-end lines of credit. The agency is now publishing final amendments to Regulation C pursuant to the April and July HMDA proposals.

HELOC Threshold
Under the rule as originally written, banks originating more than 100 HELOCs would have been generally required to report under HMDA, but the final rule temporarily raises that threshold to 500 HELOCS for data collection in calendar years 2018 and 2019, allowing the CFPB time to assess whether to make the adjusted threshold permanent.

In addition, the final rule corrects a drafting error by clarifying both the open-end and closed-end thresholds so that only financial institutions that meet the threshold for two years in a row are required to collect data in the following calendar years. With these amendments, financial institutions that originated between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years will not be required to begin collecting data on their open-end lending (HELOCs) before January 1, 2020.

Technical Amendments and Clarifications
The final rule establishes transition rules for two data points – loan purpose and the unique identifier for the loan originator. The transition rules require, in the case of loan purpose, or permit, in the case of the unique identifier for the loan originator, financial institutions to report “not applicable” for these data points when reporting certain loans that they purchased and that were originated before certain regulatory requirements took effect. The final rule also makes additional amendments to clarify certain key terms, such as “multifamily dwelling,” “temporary financing,” and “automated underwriting system.” It also creates a new reporting exception for certain transactions associated with New York State consolidation, extension, and modification agreements.

In addition, the 2017 HMDA Final Rule facilitates reporting the census tract of the property securing or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure a covered loan that is required to be reported by Regulation C. The CFPB plans to make available on its website a geocoding tool that financial institutions may use to identify the census tract in which a property is located. The final rule establishes that a financial institution would not violate Regulation C by reporting an incorrect census tract for a particular property if the financial institution obtained the incorrect census tract number from the geocoding tool on the agency’s website, provided that the financial institution entered an accurate property address into the tool and the tool returned a census tract for the address entered.

Finally, the final rule also makes certain technical corrections. These technical corrections include, for example, a change to the calculation of the check digit and replacement of the word “income” with the correct word “age” in one comment.

The HMDA final rule is available at www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/final-rules/regulation-c-home-mortgage-disclosure-act/.

Updated HMDA Resources
The CFPB also has updated its website to include resources for financial institutions required to file HMDA data. The updated resources include filing instruction guides for HMDA data collected in 2017 and 2018, and HMDA loan scenarios. They are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/hmda/for-filers.

For More Information
For more information on this article, contact Bill Showalter at 330-422-3473 or
wshowalter@younginc.com.

For information about Young & Associates, Inc.’s newly updated HMDA Reporting
policy, click here. In addition, we are currently updating our HMDA Toolkit.

To be notified when the HMDA Toolkit is available for purchase, contact Bryan
Fetty at bfetty@younginc.com.

HMDA 2018

Written by admin on . Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By: Bill Elliott, CRCM, Senior Consultant and Manager of Compliance and Adam Witmer, CRCM, Senior Consultant

Beginning in 2018, you will be faced with two major changes to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C 12 CFR § 1003). They are:

  1. Changes to the existing rules
  2. Addition of new rules

While the new rules will be challenging to navigate, the changes to the existing rules could prove to be extremely challenging, as long-established procedures and understandings are going to change. The following are a list of some of the biggest modifications.

Reporting Changes
Loan Volume Test. The new rules have two separate loan volume tests, one for closed-end and one for open-end.
The closed-end test is 25 covered loans. If your bank originates 25 “covered” loans (defined as not excluded closed-end loans or open-end loans), you will then report closed-end loans.

The open-end test is 100 covered loans. If your bank originates 100 open-end covered loans, then you will report open-end loans. There is a regulatory proposal to change this to 500 open-end for a couple of years, and we expect that to occur. The challenge here relates to business purpose loans.

All consumer purpose loans (generally HELOCs) will count, but business purposes loans may also count. Excluded loans will be open-end loans (such as an equity loan for operating expenses) that are not for a purchase, refinance, or home improvement purpose. But open-end loans such as this are refinanced, and will become reportable.

If your financial institution only meets one test, you only report the type of loans for the test you meet. This means some institutions will only report closed-end loans. Some will only report open-end loans. And others will report both.

Dwelling Secured. Under prior HMDA rules, one definition of Home Improvement included loans that were not secured by a dwelling. Under the new rules, only loans secured by a dwelling will be reportable.

Temporary Financing. The rules now only talk about financing that will be replaced by new financing. The old rules specifically excluded construction and bridge loans.

Agricultural Loans. The new rules now exempt all agricultural loans. In the past, the agricultural loan exemption only applied to purchases, which meant that when an agricultural loan was refinanced, it required HMDA reporting. Now, all agricultural purpose loans are exempt.

Preapproval Requests. Preapproval requests that are approved but not accepted are now required reporting rather than optional reporting.

Submission Process. The CFPB is going to use a cloud-based program for HMDA submissions. This means that reporters using the FFIEC software are going to have a much more difficult time. You will want to think about software options. If you are not using third-party software already, you will need to work out logistics of using the new reporting system.

Items to Consider
Our training manual for our live HMDA presentation runs 210 pages, so this is just an overview of some of the items that must be considered. Time is growing short. If your institution is going to be subject to the new rules, then training for everybody involved in the process is necessary. And for most readers, this will include more than one person.

For the future, if you are not subject to the HMDA regulation, be careful of expansion. If you open a branch in an MSA, suddenly HMDA will become part of your life. So beware of a good deal on the land or the lease – the costs of HMDA could easily dwarf the savings. If you are a HMDA reporter already, remember that any compliance requirement only gets paid for one of two ways – the applicants/customers pay for it, or it comes out of the stockholder’s pocket. Fee changes may be in your future.

HMDA Tools – Coming Soon
Young & Associates, Inc. is currently developing a HMDA Toolkit which will be available shortly, as well as a customizable HMDA policy. As there is HMDA text that the CFPB is changing and correcting (due out soon, we hope), we are not ready for release just yet. But we hope to keep the timetable reasonable. The HMDA policy will be available to purchase September 1, 2017.

We will also be offering an off-site HMDA Review beginning in 2018. We will review as many or as few loans as you would like to make sure you are on track. Billing will be based on the number of files reviewed, so you will control your costs.

Detailed information for all of these items will be available soon. If you are interested in the HMDA toolkit, HMDA policy, or HMDA reviews, we will be happy to discuss these products and services with you at any time.

Good luck – we will all need it. For more information on this article or how Young & Associates, Inc. can assist you in this process, contact us at compliance@younginc.com or 330.422.3450.

Connect with a Consultant

Contact us to learn more about our consulting services and how we can add value to your financial institution

Ask a Question