NAIHP: CFPB Issues Proposed Rule on Originator Compensation & Qualifications

by 21 Aug 2012
(NAIHP) -- Washington, D.C. – On August 17, 2012, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), issued a proposed rule regarding originator compensation and qualifications. Prior to releasing the rule, the CFPB held a conference call to brief industry on the contents of the proposal. It was during this call NAIHP learned the CFPB chose not to include its idea of a flat fee as a form of originator compensation in the proposal. “NAIHP has long been opposed to the current form of originator compensation, which is why we filed suit against the Federal Reserve Board on March 7, 2011. Altering the current form of originator compensation by adding a flat fee, would have further confused consumers. However, we applaud the CFPB for accepting extensive input from small business professionals and making the appropriate decision,” said Marc Savitt-President of NAIHP. NAIHP still believes improvement needs to be made to the proposal in other areas, such as originator qualification.  Currently, only mortgage brokers are licensed, while other originators have registration requirements. “If the CFPB’s goal is to level the playing field for all originators, then every originator should meet the same qualifications,” according to Savitt. During the SBREFA Panel and industry roundtables, dual compensation was discussed at great length. However, mortgage brokers are still banned from receiving it. “Dual compensation, is NOT double compensation and benefits consumers. Additionally, allowing depositories to receive this form of compensation, especially without disclosure, harms competition and increases consumer costs,” said Savitt. NAIHP will be commenting on the proposal shortly.


  • by Domingo | 8/23/2012 2:30:54 PM

    Can you please clarify the nmls requirements? I keep hearing the term licensed being thrown around from different sources when this subject comes up.

    1) Is it an nmls license or endorsement?
    2) Am I to understand that certain individuals are exempt from this license or endorsement requirement?
    3) Am I to understand that when you say Allowing depositories to recieve this form of compensation, that they are exempt from dual compensation?
    4) Above it states Dual compensation is NOT double compensation and in the following sentence you state Allowing depositories to receive this form of COMPENSATION-what gives here? Almost seems contradicting. Please clarify?


Is TILA-RESPA a good or bad thing long term?