Quantcast
GONE AWRY: "The mini-correspondent structure…is probably not working the way it is supposed to be," says Jason Madiedo.
GONE AWRY: "The mini-correspondent structure…is probably not working the way it is supposed to be," says Jason Madiedo.

CFPB Guidance Has Mini-Correspondents Rethinking Business Model

JUL 16, 2014 4:54pm ET
Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (2)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's guidance on the growing mortgage mini-correspondent business has scared some originators to the point that they are considering converting to branches of larger retail lenders.

"I've gotten a couple of calls from mini-correspondents asking to become branches. There is a lot of concern among the newly converted mini-correspondents given this new guidance," says Daniel Jacobs, who is president of the national retail lending division of American Financial Network, based in Chino Hills, Calif.

Mini-correspondents are smaller mortgage bankers or (where they are allowed to have warehouse lines) mortgage brokers that close loans in their own names. They typically have limited net worth and the warehouse lines they do have are provided by the entity purchasing the loan.

The guidance, issued last week, is CFPB's attempt to definitively define who is a mortgage banker and who is a mortgage broker.

Some in the mortgage origination community say it's about time that CFPB has taken this action, because they feel many of these outfits are really mortgage brokers in all but name, lacking the staffing needed to prevent fraud and the capital to repurchase loans that go bad. Others feel the channel gives smaller originators an opportunity to grow and reap the benefits of being able to close loans in their own names, such as higher prices in the secondary market. (Investors typically pay more to purchase a closed loan than to fund a brokered loan).

Either way, the ambiguities in the CFPB guidance, combined with the risks to lenders found to be in noncompliance, could spell the end of the mini-correspondent trend.

"I don't think we are going to see a lot of mini-correspondents anymore," Jacobs says. "I think we are going to have to see them invest and grow or move into a branch system. That seems to be what the CFPB is telling them to do."

Lenders that service loans have long seen this channel as a legitimate way to acquire servicing rights. They are aware that it carries more risk for them than the regular correspondent channel, but less than a brokered loan.

But with the qualified mortgage rules in place, many brokers (with the encouragement of some aggregators) have decided being a mini-correspondent is a way to avoid restrictions on fees. Critics claim that these originators are not true mortgage bankers because they lack the infrastructure and net worth.

"The CFPB is saying there is no such thing as a chickenduck. You are either a chicken or you're a duck; you can't be both," says Rick Soukoulis, the CEO of San Jose, Calif. lender Western Bancorp.

In the guidance, CFPB states it is "concerned that some mortgage brokers may be shifting to the mini-correspondent model in the belief that, by identifying themselves as mini-correspondent lenders, they automatically alter the application of important consumer protections that apply to transactions involving mortgage brokers."

There is a list of questions the agency is going to use in determining whether a transaction is a whole loan sale or a brokered loan. CFPB could determine that the originator is really acting as a broker in what it claims is a whole loan sale.

In that case, there are undisclosed fees in the transaction and as a result "you have a bunch of defective loans," Soukoulis says. Aggregators are going to have to worry if the originators they are buying whole loans from are also acting as brokers in other deals; the CFPB is likely to see these originators are brokers rather than mortgage bankers, he says.

There are risks for the originator and the purchaser of the loan on the enforcement side and the penalties can be significant, Jacobs adds.

If originators are not underwriting loans and need permission from investors to close loans—a "clear to close"—the regulator could decide they are really brokers and not mortgage bankers. Mortgage bankers typically take on the underwriting function themselves and can close a loan without waiting for their investor to say yes or no.

Furthermore, regulators could see the captive lines of credit being issued to these originators as "sham warehouse lines," Jacobs says.

Some of these captive lines of credit have been given to brokers who for any number of reasons might not have qualified for a traditional warehouse line or one aimed at those firms making the transition to mortgage banker.

The solution for these originators is to "make a choice," Soukoulis declares. "Do everything on your warehouse line and be a banker" and take on all of the related risk or just be a broker.

But the guidance is not specific in what will be considered to be a whole loan sale versus a brokered mortgage. It states that while there is a list of questions to be considered, there is not one defining factor that would make a determination.

Don Frommeyer, the president, and Rick Bettencourt, the government affairs chairman of NAMB, a trade association for mortgage brokers, met with the CFPB on July 15.

The trade group was not surprised that CPFB issued the guidance; it had brought the subject up with the agency in a meeting seven or eight months ago, Bettencourt says.

During the meeting, the CFPB asked NAMB to work with it to help clarify and provide industry insight into the guidance.

"We support the idea that there should be guidance. NAMB is not saying that the mini-correspondent conduit is not beneficial. But we have to ensure our brokers remain compliant and we have to make sure the brokers understand the added responsibility of acting the capacity of a mini-correspondent," Bettencourt says. He notes, as others have, that the guidance as currently written is ambiguous and broad.

NAMB sees this as an opportunity to work closer with the agency to help clarify the statement, as well as to address other concerns of the mortgage broker community.

Comments (2)
If banks originate and then sell the loan what's the difference if a mini-correspondent does it. I'm aware of a bank that originates and has the company they will sell to, underwrite the loan. They do this so as not to have the liability. So, if a bank can do exactly what a broker does, why the difference in treatment. It's seems like a lot of the uproar is over market share - banks losing to mini-correspondents.


Bruce
Posted by BRUCE D | Thursday, July 17 2014 at 12:14PM ET
Why is there no Mini C owner quoted for this article or any perspective from their side? Jason Madiedo states; "The mini-correspondent structure...is probably not working the way it is supposed to be,". How is not working? Do you know? Several of the opinions expressed here about the MINI C are simply unfounded and inaccurate. Are the big banks that were quoted threatened by the competition of these smaller, nimble and competitive mini Cs? What regulations exactly are the brokers getting around by becoming a mini C? Here is a picture of my company and hopefully an honest glimpse into another perspective on this issue. My small company has been in business for 15 years (in the business 20) and we transitioned from being a broker to a mini c a few years ago. We are a highly respected very competitive, honest mortgage company who provides excellent customer service and very reliable closings. We very often compete with big banks in our area and win with our service, low fees and lower rates. We fund 100% of our loans off of our warehouse line which I can use to sell to any investor that is on my warehouse line provider's approved list. I do not underwrite my loans because I don't want the overhead. We do however handle all preliminary underwriting, processing, closing docs, respa/hud compliance review and monthly QC audits using an external non-partial QC officer. Additionally we carry the proper insurances needed to bare the risk associated with being a correspondent. The only reason I am a mini C as opposed to a full fledged correspondents is because I don't desire to have the expense of underwriting nor have 500k in our bank account (typical requirement). Being a small shop our assets are simply lower. There is a great value to the mini C model if done correctly. It is an excellent way to grow gradually and wisely. So here is my advice; don't target the mini C model but the one's who are abusing it. Doesn't this make so much more sense? If brokers are working the system with warehouse lines dedicated to 1 investor. That MAY be a problem. If a broker has been in business less than 5 years total and is now a mini c that MAY be a problem. If a broker/mini C is not doing their own closing docs, compliance review (hud/gfe analysis) and no post closing QC, that MAY be a problem. Please don't only listen to big banks. Please don't blanket target the mini c model because of a few abusers. For more guidance, talk to the investors who are purchasing mini c loans. They are the one's taking on the risk so their input should be by far the most valuable. I hope you found this helpful. Sincerely, an authentic and honest MINI C.
Posted by Warren G | Tuesday, August 12 2014 at 9:59AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.