Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

ATR/QM

Complying with the “Consider” Requirement Under the Revised Qualified Mortgage Rules

By

A&B Abstract:

Purchasers of residential mortgage loans who are conducting audits of residential mortgages that they buy in the secondary market are struggling to determine what documentation satisfies the “consider” requirement of the revised qualified mortgage (QM) standards that became mandatory on October 1, 2022. In fact, originators of residential mortgage loans are not in agreement regarding what particular written policies and procedures they must promulgate and maintain and the documentation that they should include in the loan files. We set forth what we believe are the policies and procedures and the documentation that creditors must maintain and provide to their counterparties to comply with the consider requirement.

The Revised QM Rules

As a threshold matter, on December 10, 2020, Kathy Kraninger, who was the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), issued the revised QM rules that replaced Appendix Q and the strict 43% debt-to-income ratio (DTI) underwriting threshold with a priced-based QM loan definition. The revised QM rules also terminated the QM Patch, under which certain loans eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not have to be underwritten to Appendix Q or satisfy the capped 43% DTI requirement. Compliance with the new rules became mandatory on October 1, 2022.

Under the revised rules, for first-lien transactions, a loan receives a conclusive presumption that the consumer had the ability to repay (and hence receives the safe harbor presumption of QM compliance) if the annual percentage rate does not exceed the average prime offer rate (APOR) for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more as of the date the interest rate is set. A first-lien loan receives a “rebuttable presumption” that the consumer had the ability to repay if the APR exceeds the APOR for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more but by less than 2.25 percentage points. The revised QM rules provide for higher thresholds for loans with smaller loan amounts, for subordinate-lien transactions, and for certain manufactured housing loans.

To qualify for QM status, the loan must continue to meet the statutory requirements regarding the 3% points and fees limits, and it must not contain negative amortization, a balloon payment (except in the existing limited circumstances), or a term exceeding 30 years.

Consider and Verify Consumer Income and Assets

In lieu of underwriting to Appendix Q, the revised rule requires that the creditor consider the consumer’s current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and DTI ratio or residual income. The final rule also requires the creditor to verify the consumer’s current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan and the consumer’s current debt obligations, alimony, and child support.

In particular, to comply with the consider requirement under the rule, the CFPB provides creditors the option to consider either the consumer’s monthly residual income or DTI. The CFPB imposes no bright-line DTI limits or residual income thresholds. As part of the consider requirement, a creditor must maintain policies and procedures for how it takes into account the underwriting factors enumerated above and retain documentation showing how it took these factors into account in its ability-to-repay determination.

The CFPB indicates that this documentation may include, for example, “an underwriter worksheet or a final automated underwriting system certification, in combination with the creditor’s applicable underwriting standards and any applicable exceptions described in its policies and procedures, that shows how these required factors were taken into account in the creditor’s ability-to-repay determination.”

CFPB Staff Commentary

Paragraph 43(e)(2)(v)(A) of the CFPB Staff Commentary to Regulation Z requires creditors to comply with the consider requirement of the new QM rule by doing the following:

a creditor must take into account current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination. A creditor must maintain written policies and procedures for how it takes into account, pursuant to its underwriting standards, income or assets, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination. A creditor must also retain documentation showing how it took into account income or assets, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination, including how it applied its policies and procedures, in order to meet this requirement to consider and thereby meet the requirements for a qualified mortgage under § 1026.43(e)(2). This documentation may include, for example, an underwriter worksheet or a final automated underwriting system certification, in combination with the creditor’s applicable underwriting standards and any applicable exceptions described in its policies and procedures, that show how these required factors were taken into account in the creditor’s ability-to-repay determination [emphasis added].

The Secondary Market’s Review of Creditors’ Policies and Procedures and File Documentation

The revised rules suggest that, at a minimum, to ensure that the creditor has satisfied the “consider” requirement, a creditor must promulgate and maintain policies and procedures for how it takes into account the underwriting factors enumerated above as well as retain documentation showing how it took these factors into account in its ability-to-repay determination. Ideally, the creditor should make these written policies and procedures available to the creditor’s secondary market counterparties.

Further, and more importantly, the revised rules indicate that the individual loan files should contain a worksheet, Automated Underwriting Systems (AUS) certification, or some other written evidence documenting how the enumerated factors were taken into account in meeting the enhanced ability-to-repay standards. The underwriters should document their use of applicable exceptions to the creditor’s general policies and procedures in underwriting the loan.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is our understanding that compliance with these requirements has been uneven in the industry and that certain creditors have not promulgated the requisite written policies and procedures related to the consideration of income, assets, and debt. In addition, documentation (i.e., worksheets and AUS certifications) of these factors in individual loan files has been haphazard and inconsistent.

In March 2023, the Structured Finance Association convened an ATR/QM Scope of Review Task Force, comprising rating agencies, diligence firms, issuers, and law firms, to develop uniform best practice testing standards for performing due diligence on QM loans. Discussion topics included the documentation of the consider requirement of the revised QM rules.

In its early meetings, the participants in the task force confirmed that creditors have not uniformly developed written policies and procedures documenting the consider requirement. Participants have focused more on the creditor’s actual documentation of income, assets, and debt in individual loan files they believe would demonstrate substantive compliance with the underwriting requirements of the revised rules.

At this early juncture (compliance with the revised rule became mandatory in October 2022), it may be premature for secondary market purchasers of residential mortgage loans to cite their sellers or servicers for substantive noncompliance with the revised QM rules if these entities have not developed robust written policies and procedures that show how they consider income, assets, and debt.

It may be more fruitful for the secondary market to focus on the actual file documentation itself and determine whether the creditors have satisfied the consider requirement by properly underwriting the loans in accordance with the requisite elements and documenting the file with the appropriate worksheets and other written evidence.

The creditor’s failure to maintain the general policies and procedures does not necessarily render the subject loans non-QM if the loan files are adequately underwritten and amply documented. Compliance with the new QM rules and the documentation of the consider requirement is still at a rudimentary stage, and the secondary market will have to periodically revisit the way it audits mortgage loans.

Evaluating the CFPB’s Proposed Delay of the QM Rule: Timing Considerations

By

A&B ABstract: The CFPB must finalize its proposed QM delay rule in April, likely leaving no room for delay.

Background on ATR/QM and the Delay Rule

On March 3, 2021, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to delay the mandatory compliance date of the General Qualified Mortgage (QM) final rule from July 1, 2021 to October 1, 2022 (the Delay Rule).

As explained in the CFPB’s proposal, the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule) requires a creditor to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay a residential mortgage loan according to its terms. Loans that meet the ATR/QM Rule’s requirements for qualified mortgages (QMs) obtain certain protections from liability. The ATR/QM Rule defines several categories of QMs.

One QM category defined in the ATR/QM Rule is the General QM category. General QM loans must comply with the ATR/QM Rule’s prohibitions on certain loan features, its points-and-fees limits, and its underwriting requirements. Under the original ATR/QM Rule, the ratio of the consumer’s total monthly debt to total monthly income (DTI ratio) could not exceed 43 percent.

General QM Final Rule

In December 2020, the CFPB issued the General QM Final Rule, which among other changes replaced the General QM loan definition’s DTI limit with a limit based on loan pricing. The General QM Final Rule took effect on March 1, 2021, and it provides a mandatory compliance date of July 1, 2021.

In 2013, the CFPB created a second, supposedly temporary category of QMs for mortgages that (1) comply with the same loan-feature prohibitions and points-and-fees limits as General QMs and (2) are eligible to be purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (collectively, the GSEs) while under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). These loans are referred to as Temporary GSE QM loans, and the provision that created this loan category is commonly known as the GSE Patch. Unlike for General QM loans, the ATR/QM rule did not prescribe a DTI limit for Temporary GSE QM loans. Thus, a loan can qualify as a Temporary GSE QM loan even if the consumer’s DTI ratio exceeds 43 percent, as long as the loan is eligible to be purchased or guaranteed by either of the GSEs. Under the original ATR/QM Rule, the Temporary GSE QM loan definition would expire with respect to each GSE when that GSE exits conservatorship or on January 10, 2021, whichever comes first.

Patch Extension Rule

In October 2020, the CFPB issued a final rule (the Patch Extension Rule) to replace the January 10, 2021 sunset date of the Temporary GSE QM loan definition with a provision stating that the Temporary GSE QM loan definition will be available only for covered transactions for which the creditor receives the consumer’s application before the mandatory compliance date of the General QM Final Rule. Therefore, under the CFPB’s current proposal, the Temporary GSE QM loan definition would expire upon the earlier of October 1, 2022 (rather than on the current mandatory compliance date of July 1, 2021) or the date the applicable GSE exits Federal conservatorship.

Timing Considerations

Public comments on the CFPB’s proposed Delay Rule are due on or before April 5, 2021. The CFPB proposes that a final rule based on its proposal be effective “60 days after publication in the Federal Register.” Also, the CFPB “anticipates that this would make the final rule effective before the current July 1, 2021 mandatory compliance date.”

Working backwards from the July 1, 2021 mandatory compliance date, the very last day the final rule could become effective is June 30, 2021. To be effective by that date, the Bureau must publish its final rule in the Federal Register by no later than April 30, 2021.

There is typically a delay between an agency’s public announcement of a final rule and the publication of that final rule in the Federal Register. The length of the delay varies based upon the amount of time required to process an agency’s submission, which mostly depends upon the page number length of the submission, and also on the overall volume of materials submitted by all Federal Departments and agencies for processing at a particular time.  (For example, although the CFPB announced General QM Final Rule on December 10, 2020, it was not published in the Federal Register until December 29, 2020. And although the CFPB announced the Patch Extension Rule on October 20, 2020, it was not published until October 26, 2020.)

Considering the page length and subject matter similarities between the Patch Extension Rule and the Delay Rule, anticipating a minimum six-day delay between announcing the Final Delay Rule and publication of the rule in the Federal Register appears reasonable. Based on this estimate, the CFPB must announce a final Delay Rule by no later than Friday, April 23.

Processing Time

The time period between the close of the April 5 comment period for the proposed Delay Rule and the day by which the CFPB must submit the text of the final Delay Rule to the Federal Register for processing is quite narrow. In fact, the CFPB has provided itself no more than about fourteen business days within which to perform several important and often time-consuming tasks, including:

  • analyzing the public comments, data and research received in response to its proposal;
  • determining whether to revise its proposal in light of relevant points raised by the comments,
  • drafting substantive responses to significant comments;
  • completing the internal divisional clearance process;
  • drafting the text of the final rule; and
  • securing approval of the Acting Director to issue the final rule.

Performing all of these tasks within the CFPB’s self-established timetable and in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) will be difficult. For one thing, the time constraints suggest that the CFPB may begin drafting its final rule before the comment period closes, which may potentially raise questions about whether comments are given their due consideration and whether the CFPB maintains an open mind throughout the rulemaking process. For another thing, the CFPB likely cannot extend the comment period for its proposed rule; even a two-week extension would likely make it impossible for the CFPB to finalize a rule with an effective date occurring before July 1. This means that the CFPB likely must deny any extension request it receives, no matter what reason is provided in support of the request.

Takeaway

The availability of the GSE Patch and the continued ability of mortgage originators to make Temporary GSE QM loans depends upon the CFPB’s ability to finalize its proposed Delay Rule in short order. The timetable involved presents significant challenges for the CFPB, as noted above. The CFPB’s success or failure in that endeavor, and by extension the survival or demise of the GSE patch, will no doubt be received differently in different quarters, given the size of the mortgage market and the varied interests involved. This post simply notes that the CFPB is trying to thread a very small needle with its proposed Delay Rule.

CFPB Director Provides Update Relating to QM Patch Expiration

By

A&B ABstract: A recent letter from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) Director Kathleen Kraninger provides clues about the potential future of the so-called “QM Patch.”

Discussion:

In  a December 17, 2020 letter to Senator Mike Rounds (“Letter”), CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger, revealed a number of interesting insights about the CFPB’s ongoing evaluation of the reformation of the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage (ATR/QM) Rule, including the phase-out of the “QM Patch”.

Background:

The CFPB enacted the QM Patch as a temporary provision of the ATR/QM regulations promulgated pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.  It exempts lenders from having to underwrite loans with debt-to-income ratios not exceeding 43% in accordance with the exacting standards of Appendix Q to Regulation Z if the loans otherwise meet the definition of a qualified mortgage and are eligible for purchase by, among others, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

On July 25, 2019, the CFPB issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) seeking public comment regarding the fate of the “QM Patch”, which is scheduled to expire no later than January 10, 2021.  In seeking public comment in the ANPR, however, the CFPB announced that it does not intend to extend the “QM Patch” permanently.

The Letter:

Based on public comments submitted in response to the ANPR, Director Kraninger indicated that the CFPB, in amending the definition of what constitutes a qualified mortgage, will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) by no later than May 2020.

The Letter provides further detail on the NPRM.  First, the CFPB will propose to eliminate the current 43% debt-to-income requirement and impose an alternative measure such as a pricing threshold (“i.e., the difference between the loan’s APR and the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction”).  Director Kraninger asserted that the pricing threshold would help facilitate the offering of “responsible, affordable mortgage credit”.   Second, the CFPB will propose to extend the expiration of the QM Patch for a short period pending the effective date of the proposed alternative.

Perhaps even more significantly, Director Kraninger indicated that the CFPB in a separate NPRM may adopt a new “seasoning” mechanism that would confer QM Safe Harbor treatment to certain loans that have a history of timely payments.  This mechanism would greatly facilitate the sale and securitization of non-QM loans that may have missed being classified as QM due to some blemish prior to consummation.

Takeaway:

Director Kraninger’s brief comments in the Letter indicate that the CFPB is determined to eliminate the QM Patch after a short extended transition period.   Further, the CFPB has demonstrated its commitment to reforming the definition of a qualified mortgage in a manner that will enhance credit availability to a broader spectrum of the credit markets—or so it is thought—and give a lifeline to seasoned highly performing loans that have previously been excluded from the gold standard QM Safe Harbor  category.   The credit markets anxiously await the promulgation of these anticipated proposed rulemakings.

 

Alston & Bird Issues Client Advisory on First-Known Decision Rendered by U.S. District Court, S. D. of Ohio (Eastern Division) Challenging CFPB’s ATR/QM Standards Favors Mortgage Industry

By

Alston & Bird Issues Client Advisory on First-Known Decision Rendered by U.S. District Court, S. D. of Ohio (Eastern Division) Challenging CFPB’s ATR/QM Standards Favors Mortgage Industry

On April 24, 2019, Alston & Bird Partner Stephen Ornstein issued a Client Advisory to inform clients of an apparent case of first impression decided by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Court”), which rejected a consumer’s ability-to-repay defense that was raised in an attempt to prevent foreclosure of the consumer’s home.

The Client Advisory summarizes the Court’s decision in G. Ralph Elliott v. First Federal Community Bank: Bank of Bucyrus (Case No. 2:17-CV-42), decided on March 26, 2019, and notes that this case is instructive because, up to this point, there had been no defining judicial precedent interpreting the ability-to-repay/qualified mortgage (“ATR/QM”) regulations promulgated by the CFPB and effective as of January 10, 2014.  In Elliott, the Court upheld the Defendant Bank’s determination made using the ATR/QM standards.  The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant Bank violated the Truth in Lending Act by failing to make “a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information” that the Plaintiff had a “reasonable ability to repay the loan.”  The Court ultimately granted the Defendant Bank’s motion for summary judgment because it found that “there can be no genuine dispute of material fact that the Bank acted in compliance with their statutory obligations” as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1639c(a)(1).

The Client Advisory highlights that the essence of the court’s ruling was that, before making the loan, the Defendant Bank possessed ample evidence to document both that the loan met the CFPB’s qualified mortgage criteria and that the plaintiff had the ability to make the monthly mortgage payments. The CFPB regulations require that lenders make these ATR/QM determinations before or at loan consummation.  Therefore, lenders are not required to anticipate—or be held responsible for—unforeseen events occurring after consummation that adversely impact their initial underwriting determination, such as divorce, serious illness, or loss of employment. Toward that end, the Elliot is a victory for the mortgage industry that is consistent with the purpose and intent of CFPB regulations.

The Client Advisory can be found here on our website.