Home > Mortgages > No April Fool’s Joke–Court Blocks Law Protecting Consumers Seeking Mortgages

Comments 0 Comments

I’ve been a lawyer for more than thirty years, and the biggest part of that time was spent at the Federal Trade Commission working on issues relating to credit and rules for consumer protection. I’ve seen a whole bunch of regulations come and go—some good, some bad. Well, on April 1, a really good one was supposed to take effect, until a court put a stop to it. I thought it was an April Fool’s joke.

The new rule I’m talking about was to address a widespread—and, in my view, distasteful—practice that gave financial incentives to loan officers to charge consumers higher interest rates and fees on mortgage loans and to steer consumers to more costly loans, even when better loans were available. The rule was issued by the Federal Reserve Board and implemented provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulation since the Great Depression.

But it was not to be—not yet, anyway. Just before the rule limiting commissions for loan officers was scheduled to take effect, a court of appeals stepped in and temporarily blocked it.

[Related: Old Mortgage Trick May End Soon, Saving Consumers Billions]

To anyone who believes that the mortgage pricing business could benefit from more sunshine, the specifics of the rule seem utterly uncontroversial. It would prevent mortgage companies from compensating loan officers and loan brokers based on the interest rate and other terms of the mortgage loan.  Consumers shopping for a mortgage loan have generally been unaware that most loan officers and brokers could “negotiate” a higher interest rate on a mortgage than the bank’s regular rate—and earn a bigger commission for hiking the rate or adding unnecessary fees.

Lenders have also sometimes paid higher commissions if they persuaded the consumer to take a more costly loan, such as an interest-only loan, a loan with negative amortization (where the payment does not cover the interest, causing the amount owed to go up, not down, as payments are made), and loans with a penalty for early payment, such as when the borrower finds a better loan. The rule also addressed the practice of brokers charging consumers a commission for arranging the loan, and also receiving a commission from the lender.  Consumers who paid a commission understandably thought the broker was looking out for their best interests, when in fact the broker could receive a higher commission from the lender for adding more interest and fees to the consumer’s loan.  Under the rule, a broker could be paid by the consumer or by the lender, but not by both.

[Resource: Get your FREE personalized Credit Report Card]

Even more disturbing, allowing loan officers to set higher interest rates also can be racially discriminatory.  The U.S. Department of Justice has sued mortgage lenders who permit this practice, claiming that the practical result is that African-American and Hispanic borrowers pay more for their mortgage loans than similarly qualified white borrowers.  The risk that brokers and loan officers could charge minority borrowers more has caused many banks to put expensive monitoring programs in place just to ensure that the pricing discretion given to brokers and loan officers doesn’t result in higher costs to some racial or ethnic groups.

Fair Lending Risks & Racial Discrimination »

Image by kynan tait, via Flickr

Pages: 1 2

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team